Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “INSTITUTIONS”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 325 records · Page 18Linked to original sources
PubMed1976

From the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Disease Control, and the Bureau of Biologics of the Food and Drug Administration. Summary of clinical trials of influenza vaccines--II.

These studies indicate that the high-risk and normal pediatric populations can be safely and effectively immunized with a two-dose regimen of the influenza A/New Jersey/76 virus vaccine. In addition, the studies have demonstrated important differences between split-product and whole-virus vaccines in the pediatric age group. Furthermore, reactogenicity from the whole-virus vaccine administered in the schedules employed was acceptable after the first dose and negligible after the second dose. More detailed examination of the data will undoubtedly yield additional information of importance to current and future use of inactivated influenza vaccines in children.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1997

National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: Breast Cancer Screening for Women Ages 40-49, January 21-23, 1997. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel.

OBJECTIVE: To provide health care providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data regarding the effectiveness of mammography screening for women ages 40-49. PARTICIPANTS: A non-Federal, nonadvocate, 12-member panel representing the fields of oncology, radiology, obstetrics and gynecology, geriatrics, public health, and epidemiology and including patient representatives. In addition, 32 experts in oncology, surgical oncology, radiology, public health, and epidemiology, presented data to the panel and to a conference audience of 1,100. EVIDENCE: The literature was searched through Medline and an extensive bibliography of references was provided to the panel and the conference audience. Experts prepared abstracts with relevant citations from the literature. Scientific evidence was given precedence over clinical anecdotal experience. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The panel, answering predefined questions, developed its conclusions based on the scientific evidence presented in open forum and the scientific literature. The panel composed a draft statement that was read in its entirety and circulated to the experts and the audience for comment. Thereafter, the panel resolved conflicting recommendations and released a revised draft statement at the end of the conference. The final statement with a minority report was completed within several weeks after the conference. CONCLUSIONS: The Panel concludes that the data currently available do not warrant a universal recommendation for mammography for all women in their forties. Each woman should decide for herself whether to undergo mammography. Her decision may be based not only on an objective analysis of the scientific evidence and consideration of her individual medical history, but also on how she perceives and weighs each potential risk and benefit, the values she places on each, and how she deals with uncertainty. However, it is not sufficient just to advise a woman to make her own decision about mammograms. Given both the importance and the complexity of the issues involved in assessing the evidence, a woman should have access to the best possible relevant information regarding both benefits and risks, presented in an understandable and usable form. Information should be developed for women in their forties regarding potential benefits and risks to be provided to enable each woman to make the most appropriate decision. In addition, educational material to accompany this information should be prepared that will lead women step by step through the process of using such information in the best possible way for reaching a decision. For women in their forties who choose to have mammography performed, the costs of the mammograms should be reimbursed by third-party payors or covered by health maintenance organizations so that financial impediments will not influence a woman's decision. Additionally, a woman's health care provider must be equipped with sufficient information to facilitate her decisionmaking process. Therefore, educational material for physicians should be developed to assist them in providing the guidance and support needed by the women in their care who are making difficult decisions regarding mammography. The two panel members writing a minority report believed the risks of mammography to be overemphasized by the majority and concluded that the data did support a recommendation for mammography screening for all women in this age group and that the survival benefit and diagnosis at an earlier stage outweigh the potential risks.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.

Anticancer cytotoxic agents go through a process by which their antitumor activity-on the basis of the amount of tumor shrinkage they could generate-has been investigated. In the late 1970s, the International Union Against Cancer and the World Health Organization introduced specific criteria for the codification of tumor response evaluation. In 1994, several organizations involved in clinical research combined forces to tackle the review of these criteria on the basis of the experience and knowledge acquired since then. After several years of intensive discussions, a new set of guidelines is ready that will supersede the former criteria. In parallel to this initiative, one of the participating groups developed a model by which response rates could be derived from unidimensional measurement of tumor lesions instead of the usual bidimensional approach. This new concept has been largely validated by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group and integrated into the present guidelines. This special article also provides some philosophic background to clarify the various purposes of response evaluation. It proposes a model by which a combined assessment of all existing lesions, characterized by target lesions (to be measured) and nontarget lesions, is used to extrapolate an overall response to treatment. Methods of assessing tumor lesions are better codified, briefly within the guidelines and in more detail in Appendix I. All other aspects of response evaluation have been discussed, reviewed, and amended whenever appropriate.

Antineoplastic Agents↗