scispace - formally typeset

JournalISSN: 0098-7484

JAMA 

About: JAMA is an academic journal. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Population & Health care. It has an ISSN identifier of 0098-7484. Over the lifetime, 105575 publication(s) have been published receiving 5124074 citation(s). The journal is also known as: Journal of the American Medical Association & Jour. A.M.A..


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
16 Jun 1993-JAMA
TL;DR: Dairy therapy remains the first line of treatment of high blood cholesterol, and drug therapy is reserved for patients who are considered to be at high risk for CHD, and the fundamental approach to treatment is comparable.
Abstract: THE SECOND report of the Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel II, or ATP II) presents the National Cholesterol Education Program's updated recommendations for cholesterol management. It is similar to the first in general outline, and the fundamental approach to treatment of high blood cholesterol is comparable. This report continues to identify low-density lipoproteins (LDL) as the primary target of cholesterol-lowering therapy. As in the first report, the second report emphasizes the role of the clinical approach in primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD). Dietary therapy remains the first line of treatment of high blood cholesterol, and drug therapy is reserved for patients who are considered to be at high risk for CHD. However, the second report contains new features that distinguish it from the first. These include the following: Increased emphasis on See also pp 3002 and 3009.

28,474 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
21 May 2003-JAMA
TL;DR: The most effective therapy prescribed by the most careful clinician will control hypertension only if patients are motivated, and empathy builds trust and is a potent motivator.
Abstract: "The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure" provides a new guideline for hypertension prevention and management. The following are the key messages(1) In persons older than 50 years, systolic blood pressure (BP) of more than 140 mm Hg is a much more important cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor than diastolic BP; (2) The risk of CVD, beginning at 115/75 mm Hg, doubles with each increment of 20/10 mm Hg; individuals who are normotensive at 55 years of age have a 90% lifetime risk for developing hypertension; (3) Individuals with a systolic BP of 120 to 139 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of 80 to 89 mm Hg should be considered as prehypertensive and require health-promoting lifestyle modifications to prevent CVD; (4) Thiazide-type diuretics should be used in drug treatment for most patients with uncomplicated hypertension, either alone or combined with drugs from other classes. Certain high-risk conditions are compelling indications for the initial use of other antihypertensive drug classes (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, β-blockers, calcium channel blockers); (5) Most patients with hypertension will require 2 or more antihypertensive medications to achieve goal BP (<140/90 mm Hg, or <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease); (6) If BP is more than 20/10 mm Hg above goal BP, consideration should be given to initiating therapy with 2 agents, 1 of which usually should be a thiazide-type diuretic; and (7) The most effective therapy prescribed by the most careful clinician will control hypertension only if patients are motivated. Motivation improves when patients have positive experiences with and trust in the clinician. Empathy builds trust and is a potent motivator. Finally, in presenting these guidelines, the committee recognizes that the responsible physician's judgment remains paramount.

24,313 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
19 Apr 2000-JAMA
TL;DR: A checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion should improve the usefulness ofMeta-an analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers.
Abstract: ObjectiveBecause of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers.ParticipantsTwenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.EvidenceWe conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods.Consensus ProcessFrom the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed.ConclusionsThe proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.

15,106 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
17 Jul 2002-JAMA
TL;DR: Overall health risks exceeded benefits from use of combined estrogen plus progestin for an average 5.2-year follow-up among healthy postmenopausal US women, and the results indicate that this regimen should not be initiated or continued for primary prevention of CHD.
Abstract: Context Despite decades of accumulated observational evidence, the balance of risks and benefits for hormone use in healthy postmenopausal women remains uncertain Objective To assess the major health benefits and risks of the most commonly used combined hormone preparation in the United States Design Estrogen plus progestin component of the Women's Health Initiative, a randomized controlled primary prevention trial (planned duration, 85 years) in which 16608 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years with an intact uterus at baseline were recruited by 40 US clinical centers in 1993-1998 Interventions Participants received conjugated equine estrogens, 0625 mg/d, plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, 25 mg/d, in 1 tablet (n = 8506) or placebo (n = 8102) Main outcomes measures The primary outcome was coronary heart disease (CHD) (nonfatal myocardial infarction and CHD death), with invasive breast cancer as the primary adverse outcome A global index summarizing the balance of risks and benefits included the 2 primary outcomes plus stroke, pulmonary embolism (PE), endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, hip fracture, and death due to other causes Results On May 31, 2002, after a mean of 52 years of follow-up, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the trial of estrogen plus progestin vs placebo because the test statistic for invasive breast cancer exceeded the stopping boundary for this adverse effect and the global index statistic supported risks exceeding benefits This report includes data on the major clinical outcomes through April 30, 2002 Estimated hazard ratios (HRs) (nominal 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were as follows: CHD, 129 (102-163) with 286 cases; breast cancer, 126 (100-159) with 290 cases; stroke, 141 (107-185) with 212 cases; PE, 213 (139-325) with 101 cases; colorectal cancer, 063 (043-092) with 112 cases; endometrial cancer, 083 (047-147) with 47 cases; hip fracture, 066 (045-098) with 106 cases; and death due to other causes, 092 (074-114) with 331 cases Corresponding HRs (nominal 95% CIs) for composite outcomes were 122 (109-136) for total cardiovascular disease (arterial and venous disease), 103 (090-117) for total cancer, 076 (069-085) for combined fractures, 098 (082-118) for total mortality, and 115 (103-128) for the global index Absolute excess risks per 10 000 person-years attributable to estrogen plus progestin were 7 more CHD events, 8 more strokes, 8 more PEs, and 8 more invasive breast cancers, while absolute risk reductions per 10 000 person-years were 6 fewer colorectal cancers and 5 fewer hip fractures The absolute excess risk of events included in the global index was 19 per 10 000 person-years Conclusions Overall health risks exceeded benefits from use of combined estrogen plus progestin for an average 52-year follow-up among healthy postmenopausal US women All-cause mortality was not affected during the trial The risk-benefit profile found in this trial is not consistent with the requirements for a viable intervention for primary prevention of chronic diseases, and the results indicate that this regimen should not be initiated or continued for primary prevention of CHD

13,961 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
17 Mar 2020-JAMA
TL;DR: The epidemiological and clinical characteristics of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)-infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China, and hospital-associated transmission as the presumed mechanism of infection for affected health professionals and hospitalized patients are described.
Abstract: Importance In December 2019, novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)–infected pneumonia (NCIP) occurred in Wuhan, China. The number of cases has increased rapidly but information on the clinical characteristics of affected patients is limited. Objective To describe the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of NCIP. Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective, single-center case series of the 138 consecutive hospitalized patients with confirmed NCIP at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in Wuhan, China, from January 1 to January 28, 2020; final date of follow-up was February 3, 2020. Exposures Documented NCIP. Main Outcomes and Measures Epidemiological, demographic, clinical, laboratory, radiological, and treatment data were collected and analyzed. Outcomes of critically ill patients and noncritically ill patients were compared. Presumed hospital-related transmission was suspected if a cluster of health professionals or hospitalized patients in the same wards became infected and a possible source of infection could be tracked. Results Of 138 hospitalized patients with NCIP, the median age was 56 years (interquartile range, 42-68; range, 22-92 years) and 75 (54.3%) were men. Hospital-associated transmission was suspected as the presumed mechanism of infection for affected health professionals (40 [29%]) and hospitalized patients (17 [12.3%]). Common symptoms included fever (136 [98.6%]), fatigue (96 [69.6%]), and dry cough (82 [59.4%]). Lymphopenia (lymphocyte count, 0.8 × 109/L [interquartile range {IQR}, 0.6-1.1]) occurred in 97 patients (70.3%), prolonged prothrombin time (13.0 seconds [IQR, 12.3-13.7]) in 80 patients (58%), and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (261 U/L [IQR, 182-403]) in 55 patients (39.9%). Chest computed tomographic scans showed bilateral patchy shadows or ground glass opacity in the lungs of all patients. Most patients received antiviral therapy (oseltamivir, 124 [89.9%]), and many received antibacterial therapy (moxifloxacin, 89 [64.4%]; ceftriaxone, 34 [24.6%]; azithromycin, 25 [18.1%]) and glucocorticoid therapy (62 [44.9%]). Thirty-six patients (26.1%) were transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) because of complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome (22 [61.1%]), arrhythmia (16 [44.4%]), and shock (11 [30.6%]). The median time from first symptom to dyspnea was 5.0 days, to hospital admission was 7.0 days, and to ARDS was 8.0 days. Patients treated in the ICU (n = 36), compared with patients not treated in the ICU (n = 102), were older (median age, 66 years vs 51 years), were more likely to have underlying comorbidities (26 [72.2%] vs 38 [37.3%]), and were more likely to have dyspnea (23 [63.9%] vs 20 [19.6%]), and anorexia (24 [66.7%] vs 31 [30.4%]). Of the 36 cases in the ICU, 4 (11.1%) received high-flow oxygen therapy, 15 (41.7%) received noninvasive ventilation, and 17 (47.2%) received invasive ventilation (4 were switched to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). As of February 3, 47 patients (34.1%) were discharged and 6 died (overall mortality, 4.3%), but the remaining patients are still hospitalized. Among those discharged alive (n = 47), the median hospital stay was 10 days (IQR, 7.0-14.0). Conclusions and Relevance In this single-center case series of 138 hospitalized patients with confirmed NCIP in Wuhan, China, presumed hospital-related transmission of 2019-nCoV was suspected in 41% of patients, 26% of patients received ICU care, and mortality was 4.3%.

13,270 citations

Network Information
Related Journals (5)
JAMA Internal Medicine

30.7K papers, 1.5M citations

88% related
Annals of Internal Medicine

36.8K papers, 2.2M citations

87% related
The New England Journal of Medicine

71.6K papers, 9.2M citations

84% related
The American Journal of Medicine

26K papers, 1.2M citations

82% related
American Journal of Epidemiology

17.4K papers, 1.1M citations

80% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Journal in previous years
YearPapers
2021984
20201,337
20191,301
20181,302
20171,317
20161,277