Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a complex disorder for which currently there is no accepted definition. Having a uniform standard for diagnosing and classifying AKI would enhance our ability to manage these patients. Future clinical and translational research in AKI will require collaborative networks of investigators drawn from various disciplines, dissemination of information via multidisciplinary joint conferences and publications, and improved translation of knowledge from pre-clinical research. We describe an initiative to develop uniform standards for defining and classifying AKI and to establish a forum for multidisciplinary interaction to improve care for patients with or at risk for AKI. Members representing key societies in critical care and nephrology along with additional experts in adult and pediatric AKI participated in a two day conference in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, in September 2005 and were assigned to one of three workgroups. Each group's discussions formed the basis for draft recommendations that were later refined and improved during discussion with the larger group. Dissenting opinions were also noted. The final draft recommendations were circulated to all participants and subsequently agreed upon as the consensus recommendations for this report. Participating societies endorsed the recommendations and agreed to help disseminate the results. The term AKI is proposed to represent the entire spectrum of acute renal failure. Diagnostic criteria for AKI are proposed based on acute alterations in serum creatinine or urine output. A staging system for AKI which reflects quantitative changes in serum creatinine and urine output has been developed. We describe the formation of a multidisciplinary collaborative network focused on AKI. We have proposed uniform standards for diagnosing and classifying AKI which will need to be validated in future studies. The Acute Kidney Injury Network offers a mechanism for proceeding with efforts to improve patient outcomes.

Acute Kidney Injury Network: report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury

The International Classification of Diseases has, under various names, been for many decades the essential tool for national and international comparability in public health. This statistical tool has been customarily revised every 10 years in order to keep up with the advances of medicine. At first intended primarily for the classification of causes of death, its scope has been progressively widening to include coding and tabulation of causes of morbidity as well as medical record indexing and retrieval. The ability to exchange comparable data from region to region and from country to country, to allow comparison from one population to another and to permit study of diseases over long periods, is one of the strengths of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes of Death (ICD). WHO has been responsible for the organization, coordination and execution of activities related to ICD since 1948 (Sixth Revision of the ICD) and is now proceeding with the Tenth Revision. For the first time in its history the ICD will be based on an alphanumeric coding scheme and will have to function as a core classification from which a series of modules can be derived, each reaching a different degree of specificity and adapted to a particular specialty or type of user. It is proposed that the chapters on external causes of injury and poisoning, and factors influencing health status and contact with health services, which were supplementary classifications in ICD-9, should form an integral part of ICD-10. The title of ICD has been amended to "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems"', but the abbreviation "ICD" will be retained.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems. Tenth revision.

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.

/pdf/surviving-sepsis-campaign-international-guidelines-for-1trp1tl9am.pdf

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021.

Highway Capacity Manual改訂の動向--テイラ-教授の講演より

In 2 meta-analyses on gender differences in depression in nationally representative samples, we advance previous work by including studies of depression diagnoses and symptoms to (a) estimate the magnitude of the gender difference in depression across a wide array of nations and ages; (b) use a developmental perspective to elucidate patterns of gender differences across the life span; and (c) incorporate additional theory-driven moderators (e.g., gender equity). For major depression diagnoses and depression symptoms, respectively, we meta-analyzed data from 65 and 95 articles and their corresponding national data sets, representing data from 1,716,195 and 1,922,064 people in over 90 different nations. Overall, odds ratio (OR) = 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.88, 2.03], and d = 0.27 [0.26, 0.29]. Age was the strongest predictor of effect size. The gender difference for diagnoses emerged earlier than previously thought, with OR = 2.37 at age 12. For both meta-analyses, the gender difference peaked in adolescence (OR = 3.02 for ages 13-15, and d = 0.47 for age 16) but then declined and remained stable in adulthood. Cross-national analyses indicated that larger gender differences were found in nations with greater gender equity, for major depression, but not depression symptoms. The gender difference in depression represents a health disparity, especially in adolescence, yet the magnitude of the difference indicates that depression in men should not be overlooked. (PsycINFO Database Record

Gender differences in depression in representative national samples: Meta-analyses of diagnoses and symptoms.

Objective To evaluate the association between death due to drug overdose and a history of laminectomy. Design A retrospective matched case-control study of 234 drug overdose decedents from the Jefferson County Coroner/Medical Examiner's Office in Birmingham, Alabama were matched 1:2 on age to a control group consisting of decedents with any manner of death (accident, natural, suicide, homicide, or undetermined). Laminectomy cases were identified by the presence of a linear surgical scar near the spine in an orientation and place typical for a laminectomy. Results Decedents whose cause of death was a drug overdose were 2.43 times (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-4.31) more likely to have a laminectomy scar compared to decedents in a control group consisting of all manners of death. This association held for males (odds ratio [OR] 2.34; 95% CI: 1.09-5.04) and whites (OR 2.35; 95% CI 1.06-5.18) after stratification. Conclusion In the absence of an obvious cause for death, the presence of a laminectomy scar suggests the possibility of a fatal overdose and is a factor to consider in favor of performing an autopsy and toxicological analysis for drugs of abuse.

The Association between Laminectomy and Drug Overdose Deaths: A Matched Case-Control Study

W e recently read with interest the article “CaseControl Analysis of Cochlear Implant Performance in Elderly Patients” by Friedland et al. It is our opinion that, despite the title, the study did not use a case-control design because of the longitudinal aspect of the study. Also, patients were not selected according to the outcome of interest, as is the procedure for a case-control study; instead, patients were selected with respect to age, a possible exposure category. The selection criteria suggest that the study actually used a cohort study design, with one-half of the analysis a basic cohort analysis and the other half a matched cohort analysis, with patients matched on duration of deafness and preimplantation Hearing in Noise Test–Quiet (HINT-Q) score. Because of the matching of younger and older patients, a paired t test should have been used to test for differences in the matched pairs; however, it appears that the 2 groups were inappropriately treated as independent. The authors conclude that there were significant differences by age group in Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (P=.02) and HINT-Q (P=.02) scores 1 year after implantation; however, analysis using a paired t test for the matched cohort data provided in the table suggested that there were no significant differences by age group in Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (P=.06) or HINT-Q (P=.07) scores. Therefore, the conclusion that elderly patients should not be expected to have hearing scores as high as those of younger patients with similar characteristics cannot be supported statistically, as the P values exceeded .05 (acknowledging that the absolute differences remained unchanged). Finally, as with any longitudinal study, it is possible that the results are biased because of a regression toward the mean. If this bias were differential between the older and younger cohorts (eg, younger cohorts were more likely to have extreme measurements of hearing tests in relation to their true mean scores), then both the validity and the interpretation of the results are questionable. The authors should review the literature on the topic of testing and correcting for regression to the mean and determine whether this particular bias is present in their data. While the results of the current study are questionable for the reasons stated, we hope that the authors take heed of our suggestions and correct the results, accounting for the matched cohort study design. We look forward to seeing the corrected results from this study.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaotolaryngology/articlepdf/412036/olt1110_1150_1150.pdf

Longitudinal aspect of case-control analysis.

Objective Cellphone ubiquity has increased distracted pedestrian behaviour and contributed to growing pedestrian injury rates. A major barrier to large-scale implementation of prevention programmes is unavailable information on potential monetary benefits. We evaluated net economic societal benefits of StreetBit, a programme that reduces distracted pedestrian behaviour by sending warnings from intersection-installed Bluetooth beacons to distracted pedestrians’ smartphones. Methods Three data sources were used as follows: (1) fatal, severe, non-severe pedestrian injury rates from Alabama’s electronic crash reporting system; (2) expected costs per fatal, severe, non-severe pedestrian injury—including medical cost, value of statistical life, work-loss cost, quality-of-life cost—from CDC and (3) prevalence of distracted walking from extant literature. We computed and compared estimated monetary costs of distracted walking in Alabama and monetary benefits from implementing StreetBit to reduce pedestrian injuries at intersections. Results Over 2019–2021, Alabama recorded an annual average of 31 fatal, 83 severe and 115 non-severe pedestrian injuries in intersections. Expected costs/injury were US$11 million, US$339 535 and US$93 877, respectively. The estimated distracted walking prevalence is 25%–40%, and StreetBit demonstrates 19.1% (95% CI 1.6% to 36.0%) reduction. These figures demonstrate potential annual cost savings from using interventions like StreetBit statewide ranging from US$18.1 to US$29 million. Potential costs range from US$3 208 600 (beacons at every-fourth urban intersection) to US$6 359 200 (every other intersection). Conclusions Even under the most parsimonious scenario (25% distracted pedestrians; densest beacon placement), StreetBit yields US$11.8 million estimated net annual benefit to society. Existing data sources can be leveraged to predict net monetary benefits of distracted pedestrian interventions like StreetBit and facilitate large-scale intervention adoption.

Cost–benefit analysis of a distracted pedestrian intervention

ADHD 0.97 0.97 0.6416 0. 8658 1.01 1.01 0.9147 0.81 79 0.95 0.95 0.9955 0.9181 control 0.91 0.91 0.8872 0. 99 0.98 0.7742 0.95 0.94 0.8990 ADHD 1.02 0.36 0.0661 0.8988 1.07 0.39 0.0376 0.6976 1.20 0.72 0.1946 0.5674 control 0.89 0.18 0.0205 1.06 0.54 0.0779 1.09 0.84 0.3713 * Estimated from repeated measures ANOVA † P-value for interaction between group and intervention Summary of intervention findings:

http://crag.uab.edu/drivesim/OpenPubs/Stavrinos_DOM.pdf

Piloting a Cognitive Intervention for Adolescents With and Without Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Corneal Dystrophy Recurrence

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Russell Griffin

Author Tools

Chat about Author