Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 15577924

Beyond an ERC.

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Holger Breithaupt. 2004. Beyond an ERC.. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400306

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

The International Consensus Classification of Mature Lymphoid Neoplasms: a report from the Clinical Advisory Committee.

Since the publication of the Revised European-American Classification of Lymphoid Neoplasms in 1994, subsequent updates of the classification of lymphoid neoplasms have been generated through iterative international efforts to achieve broad consensus among hematopathologists, geneticists, molecular scientists, and clinicians. Significant progress has recently been made in the characterization of malignancies of the immune system, with many new insights provided by genomic studies. They have led to this proposal. We have followed the same process that was successfully used for the third and fourth editions of the World Health Organization Classification of Hematologic Neoplasms. The definition, recommended studies, and criteria for the diagnosis of many entities have been extensively refined. Some categories considered provisional have now been upgraded to definite entities. Terminology for some diseases has been revised to adapt nomenclature to the current knowledge of their biology, but these modifications have been restricted to well-justified situations. Major findings from recent genomic studies have impacted the conceptual framework and diagnostic criteria for many disease entities. These changes will have an impact on optimal clinical management. The conclusions of this work are summarized in this report as the proposed International Consensus Classification of mature lymphoid, histiocytic, and dendritic cell tumors.

Advisory Committees↗

Transdisciplinary studies of surgical oncology trial accrual: A National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Roadmap-affiliated project update.

BACKGROUND: A key objective of the National Institutes of Health Roadmap Initiative during the past 2 years has been to address scientific problems and issues through innovative research collaborations that cut across disciplines, traditions, and agendas. METHODS: Recognizing an opportunity to focus on the growing problem of low accrual to cancer surgical trials, the authors organized a multidisciplinary network of 21 clinical researchers and social/behavioral scientists to meet, review the issues, and organize working groups to study the problem. The authors, as representatives of the Karmanos Cancer Institute (Detroit, MI) and the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group, were awarded a Roadmap-affiliated grant from the National Cancer Institute under the "Meetings and Networks for Methodological Development in Interdisciplinary Research" funding mechanism. RESULTS: The overarching objective that guided the methodological developments of this network was to apply state-of-the-science methodologies and analytical strategies to examine the biobehavioral and interpersonal factors that facilitate or impede patients' treatment decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: In this brief report, the authors describe the objectives of their multidisciplinary network and their progress to date.

Advisory Committees↗

EULAR evidence based recommendations for gout. Part I: Diagnosis. Report of a task force of the Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT).

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence based recommendations for the diagnosis of gout. METHODS: The multidisciplinary guideline development group comprised 19 rheumatologists and one evidence based medicine expert, representing 13 European countries. Ten key propositions regarding diagnosis were generated using a Delphi consensus approach. Research evidence was searched systematically for each proposition. Wherever possible the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio (LR), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated for diagnostic tests. Relative risk and odds ratios were estimated for risk factors and co-morbidities associated with gout. The quality of evidence was categorised according to the evidence hierarchy. The strength of recommendation (SOR) was assessed using the EULAR visual analogue and ordinal scales. RESULTS: 10 key propositions were generated though three Delphi rounds including diagnostic topics in clinical manifestations, urate crystal identification, biochemical tests, radiographs, and risk factors/co-morbidities. Urate crystal identification varies according to symptoms and observer skill but is very likely to be positive in symptomatic gout (LR = 567 (95% confidence interval (CI), 35.5 to 9053)). Classic podagra and presence of tophi have the highest clinical diagnostic value for gout (LR = 30.64 (95% CI, 20.51 to 45.77), and LR = 39.95 (21.06 to 75.79), respectively). Hyperuricaemia is a major risk factor for gout and may be a useful diagnostic marker when defined by the normal range of the local population (LR = 9.74 (7.45 to 12.72)), although some gouty patients may have normal serum uric acid concentrations at the time of investigation. Radiographs have little role in diagnosis, though in late or severe gout radiographic changes of asymmetrical swelling (LR = 4.13 (2.97 to 5.74)) and subcortical cysts without erosion (LR = 6.39 (3.00 to 13.57)) may be useful to differentiate chronic gout from other joint conditions. In addition, risk factors (sex, diuretics, purine-rich foods, alcohol, lead) and co-morbidities (cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and chronic renal failure) are associated with gout. SOR for each proposition varied according to both the research evidence and expert opinion. CONCLUSIONS: 10 key recommendations for diagnosis of gout were developed using a combination of research based evidence and expert consensus. The evidence for diagnostic tests, risk factors, and co-morbidities was evaluated and the strength of recommendation was provided.

Advisory Committees↗