Questo è quello che abbiamo trovato per te
This study examines the availability, cost, and consumer ratings of blood pressure–measuring devices relative to validation status across 10 countries.
To the Editor We have some concerns about the recent article that compared use of a short-acting opioid (remifentanil) with neuromuscular blocking agents in rapid sequence intubation.
This randomized clinical trial of 31 adult patients in the US evaluates and compares the safety and efficacy of topical lovastatin plus cholesterol cream vs topical lovastatin cream for the treatment of disseminated superficial actinic porokeratosis.
This phase 2 randomized clinical trial evaluates whether the addition of vistusertib to weekly paclitaxel improves clinical outcomes in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma.
This randomized clinical trial compares outcomes of invasive vs conservative strategies in older adults with frailty and non–ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction at 1 year.
This retrospective cohort study evaluated the outcomes of administering plasmapheresis or intravenous immunoglobulin therapy first after ineffective systemic corticosteroid treatment among inpatients with Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis in Japan.
This randomized clinical trial evaluates whether practitioner-supported mindfulness-based cognitive therapy self-help is superior to practitioner-supported cognitive behavioral therapy self-help at reducing depressive symptom severity at 16 weeks postrandomization among patients with mild to moderate depression.
This survey study evaluate the association of patients’ health care values with engagement in advance care planning and end-of-life care.
This cohort study compares the effectiveness of adding fludrocortisone to hydrocortisone vs hydrocortisone alone among patients with septic shock using target trial emulation.
To the Editor We read with great interest the Original Investigation by Jiang et al, so-called the LASRE randomized clinical trial, demonstrating that laparoscopic surgery provided similar pathologic outcomes compared with open approach for low rectal cancer, with an increased sphincter preservation rate and improved postoperative convalescence. Despite the excellent design and conduct of the trial, we have a few apprehensions to arouse discussions on this flourishing and fadeless research topic.
In Reply We appreciate the comments by Yuan et al regarding our recent Original Investigation. During the surgical operation, we strictly followed the study design of at least 10 cm for proximal resection margin (PRM). The fact that one-fourth of patients in the laparoscopic group had a PRM of 9 cm or less most likely reflects the contraction of resected specimen from the time of resection to the time of measurement (typically at the end of surgery). A similar phenomenon (PRM at
This cross-sectional study compares rates of subcutaneous and intravenous administration of medications and fluids among patients with cancer in 2 acute palliative care units in the US and Canada.
Noting that randomized clinical trials (RCTs) “generally yield the strongest inferences about the effects of medical treatments,”(p984) the AMA Manual of Style instructs that “randomized trials may use terms such as effect and causal relationship,”(p983) In contrast, the manual claims that observational studies “cannot lead to causal inferences”(p994) and thus “should be described in terms of association or correlation and should avoid cause-and-effect wording.”(p983) Nevertheless, analyses of observational data—often consisting of real-world evidence from databases of medical claims and electronic health records—play an increasingly prominent role in health care. Given the well-recognized limitations of observational studies, their growing use to estimate treatment effects is the subject of considerable controversy. Should real-world evidence have a meaningful role in decision-making? In this issue of JAMA, investigators from the RCT DUPLICATE Initiative address this controversy by directly comparing the results of published RCTs to analyses of 3 national claims databases that are carefully designed to emulate the original RCTs. The results of their productive line of research warrant careful consideration.
This randomized clinical trial assesses the effect of adding panitumumab vs bevacizumab to standard first-line chemotherapy on overall survival among patients with RAS wild-type, left-sided, metastatic colorectal cancer.
Oggi Giornata mondiale; Fedemo, più risorse strutturali e umane
Progetto di musicoterapia con Allieve Santa Cecilia e Neuchatel
