| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Bogefeldt, Johan P, et al.
(författare)
-
Diagnostic differences between general practitioners and orthopaedic surgeons in low back pain patients
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences. - 0300-9734 .- 2000-1967. ; 112:2, s. 199-212
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background. There is a growing consensus on low back pain treatment. However, whether this extends to diagnostic labelling is still largely unknown. The aim of this report was to compare the diagnostic assessment of low back pain patients between general practitioners trained in manual therapy and orthopaedic surgeons. Methods. Population-based randomized controlled trial in which 160 patients with acute or sub-acute low back pain were assessed and treated by general practitioners or orthopaedic surgeons. Information on diagnoses and use of diagnostic imaging was obtained from medical records and physician questionnaires covering the ten-week treatment period. The Quebec Task Force classification and free text analysis were used to group diagnostic labels. Results: At baseline there were no significant differences in medical history, findings at physical examination and distribution of the Quebec Task Force diagnostic classification between the patient groups, indicating that they were similar. However, there were significant differences in physicians' use of diagnostic labels for local pain and their characterisation of radiating pain. General practitioners used more terms from manual medicine and reported more pseudoradicular pain than orthopaedic surgeons, who used non-specific pain labels, reported more true radicular pain and used more x-ray examinations. Differences were found at all times from first visit to ten week follow-up. Conclusions: There were significant differences in diagnostic assessment and use of diagnostic radiology between general practitioners and orthopaedic surgeons.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Cheng, THT, et al.
(författare)
-
Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies identifies common susceptibility polymorphisms for colorectal and endometrial cancer near SH2B3 and TSHZ1
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Scientific reports. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2045-2322. ; 5, s. 17369-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- High-risk mutations in several genes predispose to both colorectal cancer (CRC) and endometrial cancer (EC). We therefore hypothesised that some lower-risk genetic variants might also predispose to both CRC and EC. Using CRC and EC genome-wide association series, totalling 13,265 cancer cases and 40,245 controls, we found that the protective allele [G] at one previously-identified CRC polymorphism, rs2736100 near TERT, was associated with EC risk (odds ratio (OR) = 1.08, P = 0.000167); this polymorphism influences the risk of several other cancers. A further CRC polymorphism near TERC also showed evidence of association with EC (OR = 0.92; P = 0.03). Overall, however, there was no good evidence that the set of CRC polymorphisms was associated with EC risk and neither of two previously-reported EC polymorphisms was associated with CRC risk. A combined analysis revealed one genome-wide significant polymorphism, rs3184504, on chromosome 12q24 (OR = 1.10, P = 7.23 × 10−9) with shared effects on CRC and EC risk. This polymorphism, a missense variant in the gene SH2B3, is also associated with haematological and autoimmune disorders, suggesting that it influences cancer risk through the immune response. Another polymorphism, rs12970291 near gene TSHZ1, was associated with both CRC and EC (OR = 1.26, P = 4.82 × 10−8), with the alleles showing opposite effects on the risks of the two cancers.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
-
Families, Children and Youth in Global Contexts
- 2021
-
Samlingsverk (redaktörskap) (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Perspectives on Families, Children and Youth in Global Contexts brings together the main results of the research projects developed for their disseratations by the first graduate students of the Erasmus Mundus Family master's program. Coming from a significant variety of countries mostly out of Europe, these students addressed, under different perspectives, the study of families, immigration and gender issues, children and young people in school and care settings, as well as welfare policies. As a whole the analyzes carried out by the authors of this book represent important contributions for understanding the current daily lives of families, children and youth at a global level.
|
|
