| 71. |
- Sacks, David B., et al.
(författare)
-
Executive Summary : Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Diabetes Care. - 0149-5992. ; 46:10, s. 1740-1746
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND Numerous laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially. An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for laboratory analysis in patients with diabetes. The overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were evaluated. The draft consensus recommendations were evaluated by invited reviewers and presented for public comment. Suggestions were incorporated as deemed appropriate by the authors (see Acknowledgments in the full version of the guideline). The guidelines were reviewed by the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee and the Board of Directors of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry and by the Professional Practice Committee of the American Diabetes Association. CONTENT Diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased concentrations of glucose in venous plasma or increased hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the blood. Glycemic control is monitored by the patients measuring their own blood glucose with meters and/or with continuous interstitial glucose monitoring devices and also by laboratory analysis of HbA1c. The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring; genetic testing; and measurement of ketones, autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, and C-peptide are addressed. SUMMARY The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended.
|
|
| 72. |
|
|
| 73. |
- Sacks, David B., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Clinical Chemistry. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0009-9147 .- 1530-8561. ; 57:6, s. 1-47
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Multiple laboratory tests are used to diagnose and manage patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these tests varies substantially. APPROACH: An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for the use of laboratory testing for patients with diabetes. A new system was developed to grade the overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations. Draft guidelines were posted on the Internet and presented at the 2007 Arnold O. Beckman Conference. The document was modified in response to oral and written comments, and a revised draft was posted in 2010 and again modified in response to written comments. The National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry and the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee of the AACC jointly reviewed the guidelines, which were accepted after revisions by the Professional Practice Committee and subsequently approved by the Executive Committee of the American Diabetes Association. CONTENT: In addition to long-standing criteria based on measurement of plasma glucose, diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased blood hemoglobin A(1c) (Hb A(1c)) concentrations. Monitoring of glycemic control is performed by self-monitoring of plasma or blood glucose with meters and by laboratory analysis of Hb A(1c). The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, C-peptide, and other analytes are addressed. SUMMARY: The guidelines provide specific recommendations that are based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes have minimal clinical value at present, and their measurement is not recommended. (C) 2011 American Association for Clinical Chemistry and American Diabetes Association
|
|
| 74. |
- Sacks, David B., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Diabetes Care. - : American Diabetes Association. - 0149-5992 .- 1935-5548. ; 34:6, s. 61-99
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND - Multiple laboratory tests are used to diagnose and manage patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these tests varies substantially. APPROACH - An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for the use of laboratory testing for patients with diabetes. A newsystemwas developed to grade the overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations. Draft guidelines were posted on the Internet and presented at the 2007 Arnold O. Beckman Conference. The document was modified in response to oral andwritten comments, and a revised draftwas posted in 2010 and againmodified in response to written comments. The National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry and the Evidence-Based Laboratory Medicine Committee of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry jointly reviewed the guidelines, which were accepted after revisions by the Professional Practice Committee and subsequently approved by the Executive Committee of the American Diabetes Association. CONTENT - In addition to long-standing criteria based on measurement of plasma glucose, diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased blood hemoglobin A 1c (HbA1c) concentrations. Monitoring of glycemic control is performed by self-monitoring of plasma or blood glucose with meters and by laboratory analysis of HbA1c. The potential roles of noninvasive glucosemonitoring, genetic testing, andmeasurement of autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, C-peptide, and other analytes are addressed. SUMMARY - The guidelines provide specific recommendations that are based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes have minimal clinical value at present, and their measurement is not recommended.
|
|
| 75. |
- Sacks, David B., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Clinical Chemistry. - 0009-9147. ; 69:8, s. 808-868
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Numerous laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially. APPROACH: An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for laboratory analysis in screening, diagnosis, or monitoring of diabetes. The overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were evaluated. The draft consensus recommendations were evaluated by invited reviewers and presented for public comment. Suggestions were incorporated as deemed appropriate by the authors (see Acknowledgments). The guidelines were reviewed by the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee and the Board of Directors of the American Association of Clinical Chemistry and by the Professional Practice Committee of the American Diabetes Association. CONTENT: Diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased concentrations of glucose in venous plasma or increased hemoglobin A1c (Hb A1c) in the blood. Glycemic control is monitored by the people with diabetes measuring their own blood glucose with meters and/or with continuous interstitial glucose monitoring (CGM) devices and also by laboratory analysis of Hb A1c. The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of ketones, autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, and C-peptide are addressed. SUMMARY: The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended.
|
|
| 76. |
|
|
| 77. |
- Sacks, David B., et al.
(författare)
-
Position Statement Executive Summary: Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Diabetes Care. - : American Diabetes Association. - 1935-5548 .- 0149-5992. ; 34:6, s. 1419-1423
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND-Multiple laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially. APPROACH-An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for the use of laboratory analysis in patients with diabetes. A new system was developed to grade the overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations. A draft of the guidelines was posted on the Internet, and the document was modified in response to comments. The guidelines were reviewed by the joint Evidence-Based Laboratory Medicine Committee of the AACC and the National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry and were accepted after revisions by the Professional Practice Committee and subsequent approval by the Executive Committee of the American Diabetes Association. CONTENT-In addition to the long-standing criteria based on measurement of venous plasma glucose, diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) concentrations in the blood. Monitoring of glycemic control is performed by the patients measuring their own plasma or blood glucose with meters and by laboratory analysis of HbA(1c). The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, C-peptide, and other analytes are addressed. SUMMARY-The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended.
|
|
| 78. |
- Simone, Roberto, et al.
(författare)
-
G-quadruplex-binding small molecules ameliorate C9orf72 FTD/ALS pathology invitro and invivo.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: EMBO molecular medicine. - : EMBO. - 1757-4684 .- 1757-4676. ; 10:1, s. 22-31
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Intronic GGGGCC repeat expansions in C9orf72 are the most common known cause of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which are characterised by degeneration of cortical and motor neurons, respectively. Repeat expansions have been proposed to cause disease by both the repeat RNA forming foci that sequester RNA-binding proteins and through toxic dipeptide repeat proteins generated by repeat-associated non-ATG translation. GGGGCC repeat RNA folds into a G-quadruplex secondary structure, and we investigated whether targeting this structure is a potential therapeutic strategy. We performed a screen that identified three structurally related small molecules that specifically stabilise GGGGCC repeat G-quadruplex RNA We investigated their effect in C9orf72 patient iPSC-derived motor and cortical neurons and show that they significantly reduce RNA foci burden and the levels of dipeptide repeat proteins. Furthermore, they also reduce dipeptide repeat proteins and improve survival invivo, in GGGGCC repeat-expressing Drosophila Therefore, small molecules that target GGGGCC repeat G-quadruplexes can ameliorate the two key pathologies associated with C9orf72 FTD/ALS These data provide proof of principle thattargeting GGGGCC repeat G-quadruplexes has therapeutic potential.
|
|
| 79. |
- Bertola, Laura D., et al.
(författare)
-
A pragmatic approach for integrating molecular tools into biodiversity conservation
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Conservation science and practice. - 2578-4854. ; 6:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Molecular tools are increasingly applied for assessing and monitoring biodiversity and informing conservation action. While recent developments in genetic and genomic methods provide greater sensitivity in analysis and the capacity to address new questions, they are not equally available to all practitioners: There is considerable bias across institutions and countries in access to technologies, funding, and training. Consequently, in many cases, more accessible traditional genetic data (e.g., microsatellites) are still utilized for making conservation decisions. Conservation approaches need to be pragmatic by tackling clearly defined management questions and using the most appropriate methods available, while maximizing the use of limited resources. Here we present some key questions to consider when applying the molecular toolbox for accessible and actionable conservation management. Finally, we highlight a number of important steps to be addressed in a collaborative way, which can facilitate the broad integration of molecular data into conservation. Molecular tools are increasingly applied in conservation management; however, they are not equally available to all practitioners. We here provide key questions when establishing a conservation genetic study and highlight important steps which need to be addressed when these tools are globally applied.image
|
|
| 80. |
- Breznau, Nate, et al.
(författare)
-
Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. - : National Academy of Sciences. - 0027-8424 .- 1091-6490. ; 119:44
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This study explores how researchers analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each teams workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings.
|
|
