tbuckley/cabot-search huggingface dataset:
Sensitization to ibuprofen in systemic lupus erythematosus
Authors: Y. Shoenfeld
Journal: JAMA (1980)

<h3>To the Editor.—</h3> Serious side effects, including aseptic meningitis, were noted in several systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients treated with ibuprofen (239:1062, 1978).<sup>1-3</sup>We presently describe a specific cell-mediated immunity (CMI) to ibuprofen in SLE. The study group consisted of 11 women with SLE—two treated with ibuprofen, while the others never received this agent. Sixteen patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (five of them treated with ibuprofen) as well as ten healthy persons served as control subjects. In seven of the 11 SLE patients, the disease was active at the time of examination, as evidenced by high titers of antinuclear factor, anti-DNA antibodies, and low titers of C3 and C4 complement components. All but one patient were treated with antiinflammatory drugs, including aspirin, indomethacin, phenylbutazone, or corticosteroids. In the SLE patients treated with ibuprofen, 800 to 1,200 mg/day, maculopapular skin rashes developed on the trunk and extremities. Fever occurred
A SIMPLE METHOD FOR DEMONSTRATING TUBERCLE BACILLI IN THE SPINAL FLUID
Journal: JAMA (1922)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
Cyclobenzaprine Overdosage
Authors: JOHN J. AMBRE
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (1985)

Letters and Corrections1 April 1985Cyclobenzaprine OverdosageJOHN J. AMBRE, M.D., Ph.D.JOHN J. AMBRE, M.D., Ph.D.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-102-4-559_3 SectionsAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail ExcerptTo the editor: I found the letter of Heckerling and Bartow (1) both confusing and unconvincing. An earlier report (2) of three cases, cited by the authors, indicates that cyclobenzaprine overdose is associated with the "classic" signs of anticholinergic intoxication. These signs, in addition to dry skin and mucous membranes, include bowel and bladder atony, pupillary dilatation, fever, and tachycardia. Of these, the only sign shown by the patients was sinus tachycardia, which could also be readily explained by the physical exertion involved in "extreme patient combativeness" and resisting "restraint." The urine sample was reported to contain pyrilamine (also an...References1. HECKERLINGBARTOW PT. Paradoxical diaphoresis in cyclobenzaprine poisoning [Letter]. Ann Intern Med. 1984;101:881. LinkGoogle Scholar2. LINDENMITCHINERLINDZONRUMACK CJRB. Cyclobenzaprine overdosage. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1983;20:281. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Physicians' Desk Reference. 38th ed. Oradell, New Jersey: Medical Economics Company, Inc.; 1984:401-44. Google Scholar4. AMA Drug Evaluations. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company; 1983:198. Google Scholar5. MILLSPRICEPRICEROBERSON TWPJ. Instrumental Data for Drug Analysis. Vol. 1. New York: Elsevier; 1982:609. Google Scholar6. SUVANICHAMBREHOBART SJE. Pepper grains as artifactual urinary calculi. N Engl J Med. 1984;310:129. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. ATKINSONAMBRE AJ. Kalman and Clark's Drug Assay: The Strategy of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring. 2nd ed. New York: Masson Publishing USA, Inc.; 1984:129. Google Scholar1. LINDENMITCHINERLINDZONRUMACK CJRB. Cyclobenzaprine overdosage. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1983;20:281-8. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Physicians' Desk Reference. 38th ed. Oradell, New Jersey: Medical Ecomonic Company; 1984:401-44. Google Scholar3. HUCKERSTAUFFERALBERTLEI HSKB. Plasma levels and bioavailability of cyclobenzaprine in human subjects. J Clin Pharm. 1977;17:719-27. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. HUCKERSTAUFFERBALLETTOWHITEZACCHEIARISON HSASAB. Physiologic disposition and metabolism of cyclobenzaprine in the rat, dog, rhesus monkey, and man. Drug Metab Dispos. 1978;4:659-72. Google Scholar This content is PDF only. To continue reading please click on the PDF icon. Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics 1 April 1985Volume 102, Issue 4Page: 559-560KeywordsBladderFeversIntoxicationMucous membranesTachycardiaUrine Issue Published: 1 April 1985 PDF DownloadLoading ...
Detection of Paternally Inherited Fetal Point Mutations for β-Thalassemia Using Size-Fractionated Cell-Free DNA in Maternal Plasma—Correction
Authors: Brian Wansink, Matthew Cheney
Journal: JAMA (2005)

of serving bowl size on consumption was statistically significant for men (P = .02)but not women (P = .17).In the sensitivity analysis to estimate the potential impact of the 5 nonparticipants, the effect of bowl size remained significant (P = .02).Comment.Small environmental factors can have a large influence on food consumption. 4At this party, large serving bowls led to a 56% greater intake (a mean of 142 more calories/person).The size of a serving bowl (or of a portion) may provide a consumption cue that implicitly suggests an appropriate amount to eat. 5 Larger bowls, like larger packages or portions, may suggest that a proportionately larger amount is appropriate to consume.Although this study was not conducted in a medical setting, it is possible that if a physician giving diet-related advice recommends using smaller serving bowls, patients may serve themselves smaller portions.Portion distortion has generally focused on how consumption cues lead people to overeat less healthy, energydense foods.An appropriate area for further research is whether these same cues, ie, larger serving bowls, can be used to encourage people to eat greater amounts of healthier foods such as fruits and vegetables.
Essentials of Practice of Pharmacy.
Journal: JAMA (1894)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
Dyspepsia
Authors: Peter Bytzer
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2001)

Dyspepsia refers to pain or discomfort centered in the upper abdomen. This symptom is remarkably common, with 1-year prevalence rates averaging 25% in the community. Symptoms suggestive of the irritable bowel syndrome and reflux disease frequently overlap but do not form part of the definition of dyspepsia. Electrical and other stimuli can cause similar or different symptoms in various patients, and even the site to which symptoms are referred varies considerably. Dyspeptic symptoms are therefore a relatively poor guide to the origin or nature of any "disturbances" in the gut. Identification of patients who require further investigation to rule out serious structural disease, such as peptic ulcer disease or cancer, is a key issue because unaided clinical diagnosis is unreliable. The use of an age threshold (typically 45 years) and the identification of alarm features, including weight loss, repeated vomiting, and signs of bleeding, seem to be valid on the basis of the limited evidence available. Dyspeptic symptoms fall into distinct subgroups resembling the perceived clinical entities of ulcer-like and dysmotility-like dyspepsia. Unfortunately, because of overlap with reflux symptoms and between the subgroups, the clinical significance of these groups remains highly questionable. A focus on symptom predominance may be more rewarding. Lack of validated outcome measures has hampered clinical studies and has led to the development of complex outcome measures that integrate and weigh different symptoms or other indirect indicators of outcome into a general score. Further testing and validation are in progress.
MNGO-05IMAGING AND EXTENT OF SURGICAL RESECTION PREDICT RISK OF MENINGIOMA RECURRENCE BETTER THAN WHO HISTOPATHOLOGICAL GRADE
Authors: William Hwang, Ariel Marciscano, Andrzej Niemierko, Daniel Kim, Anat Stemmer-Rachamimov, William Curry, Fred Barker, Robert Martuza, Jay Loeffler, Kevin Oh, Mykol Larvie, Helen Shih
Journal: Neuro-Oncology (2015)
An Australian experience of pemetrexed in malignant mesothelioma (MM)
Authors: A. M. Joshua, M. E. Burge, C. M. McNeil, R. Hui, M. J. Boyer, R. Abraham
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2004)

7285 Background: Pemetrexed and cisplatin have recently been shown to significantly improve survival compared to cisplatin alone. However there is only limited data available in a teaching hospital setting outside a clinical trial. Pemetrexed has only been available in Australia on a "special access scheme"(SAS) since 2002. We reviewed our experience of patients treated on the SAS at three major thoracic oncology units. Methods: Charts were reviewed for all patients enrolled on the scheme. Data was extracted on age, ECOG performance status, histology, prior therapy, time from diagnosis to starting pemetrexed, chemotherapy (pemetrexed alone or with a platinum), cycle number, response rate, actuarial progression free and overall survival. All patients received vitamin B12 and folate supplementation. Doses were cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin AUC=5 and pemetrexed 500mg/m2 every 21 days. Results: 52 patients (32 male and 20 female) were reviewed. Median age was 58 years. 88% were ECOG 0–1. Histology included 54% epithelial, 17% biphasic (epithelial and sarcomatoid) and 21% undefined. The median time from diagnosis to administration of pemetrexed was 145 days. 65% had minimal surgical intervention with video assisted thoracoscopy, pleurodesis and biopsy whilst 19% had received prior palliative radiation. 71% were chemotherapy naïve, the remaining 29% having received previous platinum and/or gemcitabine regimens. 23% had pemetrexed alone, 35% in combination with carboplatin and 42% with cisplatin. Median number of cycles was 4 (range 1–13). Response rate was 25%. No toxicity was observed in 20%, grade 3–4 toxicity in 10% (majority nausea/vomiting). Median progression free and overall survival times from starting pemetrexed were 184 days and 298 days respectively. Conclusions: Pemetrexed is safe and effective in a community setting in MM with results comparable to the recent phase III trial. Author Disclosure Employment or Leadership Consultant or Advisory Stock Ownership Honoraria Research Funding Expert Testimony Other Remuneration Eli Lilly Eli Lilly
THE YEAR'S SUCCESS IN TETANUS PROPHYLAXIS.
Journal: JAMA (1904)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
The Hospitals Year-Book, 1941: An Annual Record of the Hospitals of Great Britain &amp;amp; Ireland Incorporating "Burdett's Hospitals &amp;amp; Charities," Founded 1889
Journal: JAMA (1942)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
Commentaire de travail de T. Yano et al., pp. 657
Journal: Endoscopy (2011)

See also: Long-term results of salvage photodynamic therapy for patients with local failure after chemoradiotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinomaEndoscopy 2011; 43(08): 657-663DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1256373
Sulphasalazine and mesalazine: serious adverse reactions re-evaluated on the basis of suspected adverse reaction reports to the Committee on Safety of Medicines
Authors: R A J Ransford
Journal: Gut (2002)

5-aminosalicylates are extensively prescribed for the treatment of ulcerative colitis but have a wide range of described adverse effects.To determine whether serious adverse effect profiles differ for sulphasalazine and mesalazine.Analysis of suspected serious adverse reactions reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines of the UK in 1991-1998. Adverse effect profiles were categorised for interstitial nephritis, pancreatitis, serious skin reactions, hepatitis and hepatic failure, and blood dyscrasias. Report rates were calculated using prescribing data from the Department of Health and compared for mesalazine and sulphasalazine. Further analysis was undertaken for sulphasalazine according to disease indication of inflammatory bowel disease or rheumatoid arthritis.A total of 4.7 million prescriptions were dispensed for sulphasalazine compared with 2.8 million for mesalazine. Interstitial nephritis was only described for mesalazine, with 11.1 reports per million prescriptions. Pancreatitis was reported seven times as frequently for mesalazine (7.5 per million prescriptions) compared with sulphasalazine (1.1 per million prescriptions) (odds ratio (OR) 7.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.6-18.6; p<0.001). There were no reports of serious skin disorders in patients prescribed sulphasalazine for inflammatory bowel disease. Blood dyscrasias were reported significantly more often in patients receiving sulphasalazine for rheumatoid arthritis than for inflammatory bowel disease (OR 5.31; 95% CI 2.6-11.0; p<0.001), and there was a similar trend for hepatic disorders.Spontaneous reports suggest that within the five sets of disorders considered, there is no evidence to indicate a safety advantage of mesalazine over sulphasalazine in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Pancreatitis and interstitial nephritis appear significantly more common with mesalazine, and advice on renal monitoring in patients who receive mesalazine may need reinforcing.
Reply
Authors: Mi Na Kim, Kwang‐Hyub Han, Seung Up Kim
Journal: Hepatology (2015)

Potential conflict of interest: Nothing to report. Author names in bold designate shared co‐first authorship. We appreciate the valuable comments by Sultanik et al. on our recently published article.1 They raised some issues. The diagnosis of early cirrhosis without overt clinical manifestations can be missed when using clinical criteria alone. As liver biopsy is ineligible in many cases due to its inherent invasiveness, we investigated whether the liver stiffness (LS) value using transient elastography (TE) could identify chronic hepatitis B patients with early cirrhosis requiring a more careful surveillance program because of an increased risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) among those without clinical evidences of cirrhosis. As Sultanik et al. showed acceptable performance of TE for the prediction of HCC development in their cohort (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.87), TE might be an acceptable tool for this purpose. However, they also indicated a lower sensitivity (slightly higher than 30%) of TE for the prediction of HCC development using a cutoff of 13 kPa. In our study, we did not mean that patients with an LS value of <13 kPa do not require HCC surveillance based on our concept of "subclinical cirrhosis." We also acknowledge that patients with a lower LS value (<13 kPa) should not be exempted from HCC surveillance because even patients with a low LS value and well‐controlled viremia are still subject to HCC development. Indeed, in several previous studies proposing TE‐based HCC prediction,2 an increased risk of HCC development in patients with LS values of 8‐12 kPa and 8‐13 kPa was identified with hazard ratios of 5.60, and 3.07, respectively, when compared with a reference LS value of <8 kPa. Two points can be suggested from our study. First, considering the fact that early cirrhosis may be missed by the current ultrasonography‐based surveillance methods,4 a more careful surveillance protocol might be applied in patients with early cirrhosis. Second, although the sensitivity of the LS value is not sufficient by itself, a scoring system using the LS value with other relevant variables may lead to much more improved sensitivity.2 However, because our concept of "subclinical cirrhosis" has not been externally validated, the role of TE and the corresponding optimal cutoff LS value in the surveillance setting in both treated and untreated patients with chronic hepatitis B should be further investigated in future prospective studies.
Ageing populations and the environment
Authors: Richard Smith, Jane Smith, Fiona Godlee, Jacqui Wise, Linda Beecham, Sandra Goldbeck-Wood, Alison Tonks General, Trish Groves, Kamran Abbasi, Luisa Dillner, Tessa Richards, Liz Crossan, Linda Reviews, Douglas Carnall, Gaby Shockley, Margaret Benfell, Andrew Woodward, John Gary, Bryan Standing, Richard Harling, Marcus Müllner, Susan Minns, Marita Batten Picture, Jan Science, Abi Berger, Margaret Cooter, Jackie Annis, Greg Cotton, Sharon Davies, Liz Payne, Miriam Pinchuk, Julia Thompson, Tony Delamothe, Christopher Martyn, Roger Robinson, Tony Smith, Gwen Adshead, James Barrett, Nicky Britten, Angela Coulter, Teifion Davies, Robin Ferner, Ian Forgacs, Trish Greenhalgh, Marcia Hall, Iona Heath, Richard Hobbs, David Jewell, Kevin Jones, Duncan Keeley, Tim Lancaster, Ben Lloyd, Diana Lockwood, Azeem Majeed, Michael O'brien, John Rees, Nicholas Steel, Sheila Teasdale, Tom Treasure, Chris Van Weel, John Williams, Jeremy Wyatt, Doug Altman, Mike Campbell, Tim Cole, Jon Deeks, Stephen Evans, David Machin, Ken Macrae, Julie Morris, Jackie Connor, Andy Josephides, Bernadette Kearney, Catherine Harding-Wiltshire, Nick Supple, Steve Mcauley, Simon Walker, Alan Walker, Sheila Rowe, David Evans, Jennifer Leaning, Rajendra Kale, George Alberti, Jeremy Anderson, Tony Culyer, Alba Dicenso, Canada Dixon, Paul Glasziou, Heather Australia, Peter Goodare, Tony Denmark, Brian Grabham, Canada Haynes, Canada Kjellstrand, Christian Knottnerus, Cindy Austria, Hong Lam, Alessandro Kong, Dennis Liberati, David Mant, U Jean, Claude Mbanya, Indraneel Cameroon, India Mittra, David Mulrow, Canada Naylor, John Roberts, Paula Rochon, Canada Savill, Jaime Sepulveda, Fiona Stanley, Tessa Australia
Journal: BMJ (1998)
Urinary Tract Obstruction
Authors: Robert A. Older
Journal: JAMA (1981)

EVALUATION of urinary tract obstruction is undergoing considerable change owing to the introduction of many new imaging modalities. Imaging studies used in evaluating possible obstruction include the abdominal roentgenogram, excretory urography, ultrasound, computed tomography, retrograde pyelography, and antegrade pyelography. The first part of this discussion will deal with the specific imaging studies and the information that they can provide. The interrelationships of these studies and their uses in given clinical situations will then be discussed in part 2. <h3>PART 1</h3><h3>Abdominal Roentgenogram</h3> The abdominal roentgenogram is simple to obtain and may show obvious causes of obstruction, such as ureteral stones or even large bladder stones. Marked hydronephrosis can occasionally be suggested from the plain-film findings of an enlarged kidney and a soft-tissue "mass" effect produced by an enlarged renal pelvis. <h3>Excretory Urography</h3> This is the primary imaging study in most instances of known or suspected obstruction.<sup>1</sup>Obstruction can be
INTRAVENOUS ANESTHESIA
Authors: PAUL W. SEARLES
Journal: JAMA (1942)

The simplicity of administration and the lack of detrimental effects of the short acting barbiturates have tended to increase their value for intravenous anesthesia greatly. The historical background for intravenous anesthesia began with the use of chloral hydrate in 1872 by Ore of France. Following this, a group in Petrograd first used hedonal (methyl propyl carbinol urethane) in 1905. The volatile anesthetics were then used. Ether was given in saline solution intravenously by Burkhardt of Germany in 1909, and chloroform also had a brief trial. In this country Noel and Scuttar first used paraldehyde for this purpose. A brief trial was given ethyl alcohol by Marin of Mexico City in 1929. Avertin with amylene hydrate, first used in 1929 by Kirschner in Germany, had but little intravenous use. None of these received general recognition for intravenous anesthesia. The first barbiturate to be administered intravenously was somnifen, a mixture of barbital