PubMed · 12396773
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Jo Dennis, Naomi Hampton. 2002. IUDs: which device?. https://doi.org/10.1783/147118902101196199
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
DNA damage, such as formation of single strand breaks and pyrimidine dimers was induced in yeast cells after irradiation by pulsed light, which were essentially the same as observed with continuous ultraviolet (UV) light. The UV-induced DNA damage is slightly higher than seen with pulsed light. However, increased concentration of eluted protein and structural change in the irradiated yeast cells were observed only in the case of pulsed light. A difference in the inactivation effect between pulsed light and UV light was found and this suggested cell membrane damage induced by pulsed light irradiation. It is proposed that pulsed light can be used as an effective sterilizing method for the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the level of evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of nonprescription therapies used to treat snoring and obstructive sleep apnea, and form a consensus statement based on available data. REVIEWERS: Members of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine's Clinical Practice Review Committee. METHODS: A search of PubMed database using MeSH terms snore, apnea, and obstructive sleep apnea in August, 2002, including only articles published in English between 1990 and 2002 and of the World Wide Web, using Google search engine and the key words snoring and obstructive sleep apnea. Letters were sent to manufacturers of lubricant oral and nasal products requesting copies of scientific studies to support their claims. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Given the paucity and quality of scientific literature regarding the nonpharmacologic treatment of snoring and obstructive sleep apnea, members of the Clinical Practice Review Committee had insufficient information to develop standards of practice recommendations. Nevertheless, substantial publicity regarding such treatments is available to the general public. Very limited data are available to support a beneficial effect of these devices on snoring and minimal evidence is available to support their use in treating obstructive sleep apnea. Studies are limited by small numbers of participants and, in some instances, inadequate design, lack of statistical analysis, and sparse use of objective measurements. Many studies do not evaluate product safety, especially over extended use. Physicians may find this information useful in counseling their patients.