Tienda online donde Comprar Oxford American Handbook of Gastroenterology and Hepatology al precio... more Tienda online donde Comprar Oxford American Handbook of Gastroenterology and Hepatology al precio 54,36 € de Adam S Cheifetz | Alphonso Brown | Michael Curry | Alan C Moss, tienda de Libros de Medicina, Libros de Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria/General - Medicina clinica
Acute pancreatitis is a common inflammatory disorder of the pancreas. Within the past decade our ... more Acute pancreatitis is a common inflammatory disorder of the pancreas. Within the past decade our ability to diagnose and treat complications of acute pancreatitis has improved. Despite advances in diagnostic and therapeutic technology it is unclear whether we have been able to impact health related outcomes of acute pancreatitis such as incidence and mortality. The aim of this study was to use a national database of U.S. hospitals to evaluate the trends in the incidence and mortality associated with acute pancreatitis. We also examined the impact that patient demographic and hospital characteristics have on health related outcomes in acute pancreatitis. We analyzed the National Inpatient Sample Database (NIS) for all subjects in which acute pancreatitis (ICD-9 code: 577.0) was the principal discharge diagnosis during the period from 1997-2003. All identified subjects were analyzed for demographic characteristics as well as hospital characteristics. The mean frequency of discharges f...
Purpose: Recent surveys show an increasing use of complementary and alternative medicine therapie... more Purpose: Recent surveys show an increasing use of complementary and alternative medicine therapies (CAM) by the public. This survey assessed self-reported use and attitudes towards CAM among patients at a gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology (Hep) clinic compared to the public (P). Methods: A survey was administered to 90 GI patients, 85 Hep patients, and a total of 93 consumers at two local shopping malls. The survey obtained information on self-reported CAM use, reasons for CAM use, observed side effects and benefits of CAM, patient-physician communication about CAM, and the socio-economic status of CAM users. Results: Two hundred and sixty-eight surveys were completed and analyzed. 161M (60.1%) and 107F (39.9%). The mean age was 45.7; range of 13–92. 40% of GI, 35.2% of Hep patients, and 43% of the public reported use of some CAM therapy. Herbal therapies, including dietary supplements, were the most frequently used CAM (80.5%-GI, 83.3%-Hep, 61.5%-P). Bodywork was the second most used CAM. The main reasons for CAM use were to stay healthy (50%-GI, 37%-Hep, 66%-P) and to participate in the healing process (27.7%-GI, 26.6%-Hep, 25.6%-P). Observed benefits were decreased pain, weight loss, regularity of bowel movements, increased energy, and improved well being. Restlessness, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea were the most often reported side effects. GI and Hep patients were equally likely to always inform their physician about CAM use (69.9%-GI, 61.1%-Hep). However, only 48.7% of the public would always inform their physician. The majority of CAM users either had no opinion (20.9%) or believed that the relative safety of CAM depended on the CAM used (42.8%). Socio-economically, CAM users were 60.9% Caucasian, 20.0% African American, and 19.0% other. There was no significant difference in the use of CAM between economic groups ( $25,000-35.2%, $25,000 to $50,000-30.0%, $50,000-34.2%). Conclusions: Nearly forty percent of patients used at least one CAM therapy to prevent illness or actively participate in the healing process. In contrast to earlier studies, the majority of users would always communicate CAM use to their physicians and tended to be of no particular economic class. Remarkably, approximately sixty-five percent of CAM users were unacquainted with the relative safety of CAM. This high use and lack of knowledge of CAM is a reminder for physicians to frequently inquire and educate patients about CAM use.
Purpose: Clinical research in GI is funded by various sources, including private industry, munici... more Purpose: Clinical research in GI is funded by various sources, including private industry, municipalities and professional societies. The effect that the source of the funding for a study has on the quality of the study is not known. ... To read this article in full you may need to log in, make a ...
Purpose: Recent surveys show an increasing use of complementary and alternative medicine therapie... more Purpose: Recent surveys show an increasing use of complementary and alternative medicine therapies (CAM) by the public. This survey assessed self-reported use and attitudes towards CAM among patients at a gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology (Hep) clinic compared to the public (P). Methods: A survey was administered to 90 GI patients, 85 Hep patients, and a total of 93 consumers at two local shopping malls. The survey obtained information on self-reported CAM use, reasons for CAM use, observed side effects and benefits of CAM, patient-physician communication about CAM, and the socio-economic status of CAM users. Results: Two hundred and sixty-eight surveys were completed and analyzed. 161M (60.1%) and 107F (39.9%). The mean age was 45.7; range of 13–92. 40% of GI, 35.2% of Hep patients, and 43% of the public reported use of some CAM therapy. Herbal therapies, including dietary supplements, were the most frequently used CAM (80.5%-GI, 83.3%-Hep, 61.5%-P). Bodywork was the second most used CAM. The main reasons for CAM use were to stay healthy (50%-GI, 37%-Hep, 66%-P) and to participate in the healing process (27.7%-GI, 26.6%-Hep, 25.6%-P). Observed benefits were decreased pain, weight loss, regularity of bowel movements, increased energy, and improved well being. Restlessness, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea were the most often reported side effects. GI and Hep patients were equally likely to always inform their physician about CAM use (69.9%-GI, 61.1%-Hep). However, only 48.7% of the public would always inform their physician. The majority of CAM users either had no opinion (20.9%) or believed that the relative safety of CAM depended on the CAM used (42.8%). Socio-economically, CAM users were 60.9% Caucasian, 20.0% African American, and 19.0% other. There was no significant difference in the use of CAM between economic groups ( $25,000-35.2%, $25,000 to $50,000-30.0%, $50,000-34.2%). Conclusions: Nearly forty percent of patients used at least one CAM therapy to prevent illness or actively participate in the healing process. In contrast to earlier studies, the majority of users would always communicate CAM use to their physicians and tended to be of no particular economic class. Remarkably, approximately sixty-five percent of CAM users were unacquainted with the relative safety of CAM. This high use and lack of knowledge of CAM is a reminder for physicians to frequently inquire and educate patients about CAM use.
Clinical trials evaluating the protective effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)... more Clinical trials evaluating the protective effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) have yielded inconclusive results. Our objective was to conduct a meta-analysis of the data to date to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rectal NSAIDs for PEP prophylaxis. We did a systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect method because of the absence of significant heterogeneity in the included trials. Seven randomized, controlled trials involving 2133 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that rectal NSAIDs decreased the overall incidence of PEP (risk ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.57; P < 0.01). The number needed to treat was 11. The NSAID prophylaxis also decreased the incidence of moderate to severe PEP (risk ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.63; P < 0.01). The number needed to treat was 34. No differences of the adverse events attributable to NSAIDs were observed. In conclusion, prophylactic use of rectal NSAIDs reduces the incidence and severity of PEP. There is neither a difference in efficacy between rectal indomethacin and diclofenac nor a difference in efficacy between the timing of administration of rectal NSAIDs, that is, immediate pre-ERCP and post-ERCP.
Tienda online donde Comprar Oxford American Handbook of Gastroenterology and Hepatology al precio... more Tienda online donde Comprar Oxford American Handbook of Gastroenterology and Hepatology al precio 54,36 € de Adam S Cheifetz | Alphonso Brown | Michael Curry | Alan C Moss, tienda de Libros de Medicina, Libros de Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria/General - Medicina clinica
Acute pancreatitis is a common inflammatory disorder of the pancreas. Within the past decade our ... more Acute pancreatitis is a common inflammatory disorder of the pancreas. Within the past decade our ability to diagnose and treat complications of acute pancreatitis has improved. Despite advances in diagnostic and therapeutic technology it is unclear whether we have been able to impact health related outcomes of acute pancreatitis such as incidence and mortality. The aim of this study was to use a national database of U.S. hospitals to evaluate the trends in the incidence and mortality associated with acute pancreatitis. We also examined the impact that patient demographic and hospital characteristics have on health related outcomes in acute pancreatitis. We analyzed the National Inpatient Sample Database (NIS) for all subjects in which acute pancreatitis (ICD-9 code: 577.0) was the principal discharge diagnosis during the period from 1997-2003. All identified subjects were analyzed for demographic characteristics as well as hospital characteristics. The mean frequency of discharges f...
Purpose: Recent surveys show an increasing use of complementary and alternative medicine therapie... more Purpose: Recent surveys show an increasing use of complementary and alternative medicine therapies (CAM) by the public. This survey assessed self-reported use and attitudes towards CAM among patients at a gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology (Hep) clinic compared to the public (P). Methods: A survey was administered to 90 GI patients, 85 Hep patients, and a total of 93 consumers at two local shopping malls. The survey obtained information on self-reported CAM use, reasons for CAM use, observed side effects and benefits of CAM, patient-physician communication about CAM, and the socio-economic status of CAM users. Results: Two hundred and sixty-eight surveys were completed and analyzed. 161M (60.1%) and 107F (39.9%). The mean age was 45.7; range of 13–92. 40% of GI, 35.2% of Hep patients, and 43% of the public reported use of some CAM therapy. Herbal therapies, including dietary supplements, were the most frequently used CAM (80.5%-GI, 83.3%-Hep, 61.5%-P). Bodywork was the second most used CAM. The main reasons for CAM use were to stay healthy (50%-GI, 37%-Hep, 66%-P) and to participate in the healing process (27.7%-GI, 26.6%-Hep, 25.6%-P). Observed benefits were decreased pain, weight loss, regularity of bowel movements, increased energy, and improved well being. Restlessness, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea were the most often reported side effects. GI and Hep patients were equally likely to always inform their physician about CAM use (69.9%-GI, 61.1%-Hep). However, only 48.7% of the public would always inform their physician. The majority of CAM users either had no opinion (20.9%) or believed that the relative safety of CAM depended on the CAM used (42.8%). Socio-economically, CAM users were 60.9% Caucasian, 20.0% African American, and 19.0% other. There was no significant difference in the use of CAM between economic groups ( $25,000-35.2%, $25,000 to $50,000-30.0%, $50,000-34.2%). Conclusions: Nearly forty percent of patients used at least one CAM therapy to prevent illness or actively participate in the healing process. In contrast to earlier studies, the majority of users would always communicate CAM use to their physicians and tended to be of no particular economic class. Remarkably, approximately sixty-five percent of CAM users were unacquainted with the relative safety of CAM. This high use and lack of knowledge of CAM is a reminder for physicians to frequently inquire and educate patients about CAM use.
Purpose: Clinical research in GI is funded by various sources, including private industry, munici... more Purpose: Clinical research in GI is funded by various sources, including private industry, municipalities and professional societies. The effect that the source of the funding for a study has on the quality of the study is not known. ... To read this article in full you may need to log in, make a ...
Purpose: Recent surveys show an increasing use of complementary and alternative medicine therapie... more Purpose: Recent surveys show an increasing use of complementary and alternative medicine therapies (CAM) by the public. This survey assessed self-reported use and attitudes towards CAM among patients at a gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology (Hep) clinic compared to the public (P). Methods: A survey was administered to 90 GI patients, 85 Hep patients, and a total of 93 consumers at two local shopping malls. The survey obtained information on self-reported CAM use, reasons for CAM use, observed side effects and benefits of CAM, patient-physician communication about CAM, and the socio-economic status of CAM users. Results: Two hundred and sixty-eight surveys were completed and analyzed. 161M (60.1%) and 107F (39.9%). The mean age was 45.7; range of 13–92. 40% of GI, 35.2% of Hep patients, and 43% of the public reported use of some CAM therapy. Herbal therapies, including dietary supplements, were the most frequently used CAM (80.5%-GI, 83.3%-Hep, 61.5%-P). Bodywork was the second most used CAM. The main reasons for CAM use were to stay healthy (50%-GI, 37%-Hep, 66%-P) and to participate in the healing process (27.7%-GI, 26.6%-Hep, 25.6%-P). Observed benefits were decreased pain, weight loss, regularity of bowel movements, increased energy, and improved well being. Restlessness, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea were the most often reported side effects. GI and Hep patients were equally likely to always inform their physician about CAM use (69.9%-GI, 61.1%-Hep). However, only 48.7% of the public would always inform their physician. The majority of CAM users either had no opinion (20.9%) or believed that the relative safety of CAM depended on the CAM used (42.8%). Socio-economically, CAM users were 60.9% Caucasian, 20.0% African American, and 19.0% other. There was no significant difference in the use of CAM between economic groups ( $25,000-35.2%, $25,000 to $50,000-30.0%, $50,000-34.2%). Conclusions: Nearly forty percent of patients used at least one CAM therapy to prevent illness or actively participate in the healing process. In contrast to earlier studies, the majority of users would always communicate CAM use to their physicians and tended to be of no particular economic class. Remarkably, approximately sixty-five percent of CAM users were unacquainted with the relative safety of CAM. This high use and lack of knowledge of CAM is a reminder for physicians to frequently inquire and educate patients about CAM use.
Clinical trials evaluating the protective effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)... more Clinical trials evaluating the protective effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) have yielded inconclusive results. Our objective was to conduct a meta-analysis of the data to date to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rectal NSAIDs for PEP prophylaxis. We did a systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect method because of the absence of significant heterogeneity in the included trials. Seven randomized, controlled trials involving 2133 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that rectal NSAIDs decreased the overall incidence of PEP (risk ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.57; P < 0.01). The number needed to treat was 11. The NSAID prophylaxis also decreased the incidence of moderate to severe PEP (risk ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.63; P < 0.01). The number needed to treat was 34. No differences of the adverse events attributable to NSAIDs were observed. In conclusion, prophylactic use of rectal NSAIDs reduces the incidence and severity of PEP. There is neither a difference in efficacy between rectal indomethacin and diclofenac nor a difference in efficacy between the timing of administration of rectal NSAIDs, that is, immediate pre-ERCP and post-ERCP.
Uploads
Papers by alphonso brown