Institution
University of São Paulo
Education•São Paulo, Brazil•
About: University of São Paulo is a education organization based out in São Paulo, Brazil. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 136513 authors who have published 272320 publications receiving 5127869 citations. The organization is also known as: USP & Universidade de São Paulo.
Topics: Population, Health care, Transplantation, Immune system, Poison control
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of Washington1, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust2, McMaster University3, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic4, Emory University5, Federal University of São Paulo6, Ottawa Hospital7, St Thomas' Hospital8, University of Michigan9, Cooper University Hospital10, University of Kansas11, University of Amsterdam12, United Arab Emirates University13, University of Pittsburgh14, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences15, University of São Paulo16, University of Minnesota17, Population Health Research Institute18, University of Toronto19, Humanitas University20, University of Kentucky21, Ghent University Hospital22, University of Tokyo23, Peking Union Medical College Hospital24, Hebron University25, Monash University26, Copenhagen University Hospital27, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine28, Vanderbilt University29, Brigham and Women's Hospital30, University of Ulsan31, University of Manitoba32, Makerere University33, Faculdade de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto34, National Institutes of Health35, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto36, Medanta37, University of the Witwatersrand38, New York University39, Washington University in St. Louis40, University of Alberta41, Hennepin County Medical Center42, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital43, University of Pennsylvania44, Hebrew University of Jerusalem45, Hochschule Hannover46, Brown University47
TL;DR: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications as mentioned in this paper, which are either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements.
Abstract: Background
Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications.
Methods
We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements.
Results
The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care.
Conclusion
The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families.
664 citations
••
663 citations
••
Harvard University1, University of Otago2, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana3, Stony Brook University4, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven5, Utrecht University6, University College Hospital, Ibadan7, Peking University8, St George's Hospital9, University of Tokyo10, University of Paris11, Mental Health Services12, Pontifical Xavierian University13, All India Institute of Medical Sciences14, New Bulgarian University15, University of São Paulo16
TL;DR: Using data from over 100,000 individuals in 21 countries participating in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys, Matthew Nock and colleagues investigate which mental health disorders increase the odds of experiencing suicidal thoughts and actual suicide attempts.
Abstract: Background: Suicide is a leading cause of death worldwide. Mental disorders are among the strongest predictors of suicide; however, little is known about which disorders are uniquely predictive of suicidal behavior, the extent to which disorders predict suicide attempts beyond their association with suicidal thoughts, and whether these associations are similar across developed and developing countries. This study was designed to test each of these questions with a focus on nonfatal suicide attempts. Methods and Findings: Data on the lifetime presence and age-of-onset of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV) mental disorders and nonfatal suicidal behaviors were collected via structured face-to-face interviews with 108,664 respondents from 21 countries participating in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. The results show that each lifetime disorder examined significantly predicts the subsequent first onset of suicide attempt (odds ratios [ORs] = 2.9–8.9). After controlling for comorbidity, these associations decreased substantially (ORs = 1.5–5.6) but remained significant in most cases. Overall, mental disorders were equally predictive in developed and developing countries, with a key difference being that the strongest predictors of suicide attempts in developed countries were mood disorders, whereas in developing countries impulse-control, substance use, and post-traumatic stress disorders were most predictive. Disaggregation of the associations between mental disorders and nonfatal suicide attempts showed that these associations are largely due to disorders predicting the onset of suicidal thoughts rather than predicting progression from thoughts to attempts. In the few instances where mental disorders predicted the transition from suicidal thoughts to attempts, the significant disorders are characterized by anxiety and poor impulse-control. The limitations of this study include the use of retrospective self-reports of lifetime occurrence and age-of-onset of mental disorders and suicidal behaviors, as well as the narrow focus on mental disorders as predictors of nonfatal suicidal behaviors, each of which must be addressed in future studies. Conclusions: This study found that a wide range of mental disorders increased the odds of experiencing suicide ideation. However, after controlling for psychiatric comorbidity, only disorders characterized by anxiety and poor impulse-control predict which people with suicide ideation act on such thoughts. These findings provide a more fine-grained understanding of the associations between mental disorders and subsequent suicidal behavior than previously available and indicate that mental disorders predict suicidal behaviors similarly in both developed and developing countries. Future research is needed to delineate the mechanisms through which people come to think about suicide and subsequently progress from ideation to attempts.
661 citations
••
TL;DR: The results of this study suggest that this new approach of cortical stimulation can be effective to control pain in patients with spinal cord lesion, and potential mechanisms for pain amelioration after tDCS, such as a secondary modulation of thalamic nuclei activity.
Abstract: Past evidence has shown that motor cortical stimulation with invasive and non-invasive brain stimulation is effective to relieve central pain. Here we aimed to study the effects of another, very safe technique of non-invasive brain stimulation--transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)--on pain control in patients with central pain due to traumatic spinal cord injury. Patients were randomized to receive sham or active motor tDCS (2mA, 20 min for 5 consecutive days). A blinded evaluator rated the pain using the visual analogue scale for pain, Clinician Global Impression and Patient Global Assessment. Safety was assessed with a neuropsychological battery and confounders with the evaluation of depression and anxiety changes. There was a significant pain improvement after active anodal stimulation of the motor cortex, but not after sham stimulation. These results were not confounded by depression or anxiety changes. Furthermore, cognitive performance was not significantly changed throughout the trial in both treatment groups. The results of our study suggest that this new approach of cortical stimulation can be effective to control pain in patients with spinal cord lesion. We discuss potential mechanisms for pain amelioration after tDCS, such as a secondary modulation of thalamic nuclei activity.
661 citations
••
Université de Sherbrooke1, World Health Organization2, McMaster University3, University of Indonesia4, Geneva College5, University of California, San Francisco6, Peking Union Medical College Hospital7, Royal Melbourne Hospital8, Ziauddin University9, St Thomas' Hospital10, All India Institute of Medical Sciences11, Aga Khan University12, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust13, St. George's University14, University of Colombo15, University of São Paulo16, Charité17, Ghent University18, Andrés Bello National University19, King's College London20, Hanoi Medical University21, Stellenbosch University22, University of Oxford23, Lanzhou University24, University of Liverpool25
TL;DR: A standing international panel of content experts, patients, clinicians, and methodologists, free from relevant conflicts of interest, produce recommendations for clinical practice, containing a strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical covid-19, and a weak or conditional recommendation against systemic cortiosteroids for non-severe patients.
Abstract: Clinical question What is the role of drug interventions in the treatment of patients with covid-19? New recommendation Increased attention on ivermectin as a potential treatment for covid-19 triggered this recommendation. The panel made a recommendation against ivermectin in patients with covid-19 regardless of disease severity, except in the context of a clinical trial. Prior recommendations (a) a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine in patients with covid-19, regardless of disease severity; (b) a strong recommendation against the use of lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with covid-19, regardless of disease severity; (c) a strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical covid-19; (d) a conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids in patients with non-severe covid-19, and (e) a conditional recommendation against remdesivir in hospitalised patients with covid-19. How this guideline was created This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development group (GDG) of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Understanding the new recommendation There is insufficient evidence to be clear to what extent, if any, ivermectin is helpful or harmful in treating covid-19. There was a large degree of uncertainty in the evidence about ivermectin on mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, need for hospital admission, time to clinical improvement, and other patient-important outcomes. There is potential for harm with an increased risk of adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation. Applying pre-determined values and preferences, the panel inferred that almost all well informed patients would want to receive ivermectin only in the context of a randomised trial, given that the evidence left a very high degree of uncertainty on important effects. Updates This is a living guideline. It replaces earlier versions (4 September, 20 November, and 17 December 2020) and supersedes the BMJ Rapid Recommendations on remdesivir published on 2 July 2020. The previous versions can be found as data supplements. New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. Readers note This is the fourth version (update 3) of the living guideline (BMJ 2020;370:m3379). When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.
660 citations
Authors
Showing all 138091 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
George M. Whitesides | 240 | 1739 | 269833 |
Peter Libby | 211 | 932 | 182724 |
Robert C. Nichol | 187 | 851 | 162994 |
Paul M. Thompson | 183 | 2271 | 146736 |
Terrie E. Moffitt | 182 | 594 | 150609 |
Douglas R. Green | 182 | 661 | 145944 |
Richard B. Lipton | 176 | 2110 | 140776 |
Robin M. Murray | 171 | 1539 | 116362 |
George P. Chrousos | 169 | 1612 | 120752 |
David A. Bennett | 167 | 1142 | 109844 |
Barry M. Popkin | 157 | 751 | 90453 |
David H. Adams | 155 | 1613 | 117783 |
Joao Seixas | 153 | 1538 | 115070 |
Matthias Egger | 152 | 901 | 184176 |
Ichiro Kawachi | 149 | 1216 | 90282 |