Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5483937 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02484-15 | DOI Listing |
BMC Med
December 2024
Department of Social Sciences, Chair Group Consumption & Healthy Lifestyles, Wageningen University & Research, Hollandseweg 1, Wageningen, 6706KN, the Netherlands.
Background: Unhealthy visual food cues in outdoor public spaces are external drivers of unhealthy diets. Food cues are visible situations associated with food-related memories. This study aimed to gain insight into the (un)healthy food cues residents notice in outdoor public spaces in Dutch municipalities.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFHum Reprod
December 2024
Assisted Reproduction Center, Northwest Women's and Children's Hospital, Xi'an, China.
Study Question: Are live birth rates (LBRs) per woman following flexible progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (fPPOS) treatment non-inferior to LBRs per woman following the conventional GnRH-antagonist protocol in expected suboptimal responders undergoing freeze-all cycles in assisted reproduction treatment?
Summary Answer: In women expected to have a suboptimal response, the 12-month likelihood of live birth with the fPPOS treatment did not achieve the non-inferiority criteria when compared to the standard GnRH antagonist protocol for IVF/ICSI treatment with a freeze-all strategy.
What Is Known Already: The standard PPOS protocol is effective for ovarian stimulation, where medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) is conventionally administered in the early follicular phase for ovulatory suppression. Recent retrospective cohort studies on donor cycles have shown the potential to prevent premature ovulation and maintain oocyte yields by delaying the administration of MPA until the midcycle (referred to as fPPOS), similar to GnRH antagonist injections.
J Anesth
December 2024
Department of Anesthesiology, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology, 35-2, Sakae-Cho, Itabashi-Ku, Tokyo, 173-0015, Japan.
Purpose: We investigated whether patients who have been issued a do-not-attempt-resuscitation order (DNAR) preoperatively (hereafter, DNAR patients) are informed of the DNAR code change when they undergo anesthesia. We also conducted a survey of the awareness of medical staff regarding perioperative DNARs, and investigated the current situation at a single-center in Japan.
Methods: For DNAR patients managed by anesthesiologists from January 2019 to September 2022, we retrospectively investigated whether the patient was informed of the DNAR code change or the DNAR was automatically suspended without explanation.
Support Care Cancer
December 2024
Teaching and Training Department, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), Avenida Gran Vía de L'Hospitalet 199-203, L'Hospitalet-Barcelona, 08908, Barcelona, Spain.
Purpose: Patients receiving immunotherapy need to have a good understanding of how immunology works and which toxicities they can expect. This study aimed to assess patients' knowledge on their immunotherapies and their quality of life before and after receiving immunotherapy for the first time in a cancer centre.
Methods: From July 2018 to September 2020, all patients treated at the cancer centre receiving first-time immunotherapy were invited to participate in a cross-sectional descriptive study.
Clin Transl Oncol
December 2024
Fundación ECO (Excelencia y Calidad en Oncología), Madrid, Spain.
Background: There are gaps and unanswered questions in clinical guidelines regarding several aspects of the management of patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC).
Methods: A scientific committee of ten cSCC specialists in Spain (dermatology, medical oncology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, plastic surgery, and radiotherapy) used ADAPTE methodology to develop recommendations by: (i) identifying clinical questions not fully answered by clinical practice guidelines; (ii) systematically reviewing the literature (published between November 2017 and July 2023 in PubMed and the Cochrane database) and grading the evidence (using Oxford levels); (iii) developing recommendations and assessing those with no consensus among the scientific committee or with evidence level 3-5 or strength of recommendation under C or D in a two-round Delphi method; and (iv) developing the final recommendations in the form of answers to key clinical questions, grading the strength of recommendation. An external group of 32 experts plus the members of the committee participated in both Delphi rounds, evaluating the appropriateness and need of the recommendations.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!