Contact us now....

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Telephone Number (required)

Your Message

Word verification: Type out image below (required)
captcha

Loading

Viagra Professional

Viagra Professional

By O. Ashton. Winthrop University.

Percentiles Cutoffs between positive and negative test result chosen within preset percentiles of the patients tested cheapest viagra professional. Placebo An inert substance given to a study subject who has been assigned to the control group to make them think they are getting the treatment under study purchase viagra professional american express. Point On a decision tree buy viagra professional once a day, the outcome of possible decisions made by the patient and clinician. The confidence interval tells you the range within which the true value of the result is likely to lie with 95% confidence. Point of indifference The probability of an outcome of certain death at which a patient no longer can decide between that outcome and an uncertain outcome of partial disability. Population The group of people who meet the criteria for entry into a study (whether they actually participated in the study or not). Positive predictive value Probability of disease after the occurrence of a positive test result. Power The probability that an experimental study will correctly observe a statistically significant difference between the study groups when that difference actually exists. Measure of random variation or error, or a small standard deviation of the measurement across multiple measurements. Predictive values The probability that a patient with a particular outcome on a diagnostic test (positive or negative) has or does not have the disease. Predictor variable The variable that is going to predict the presence or absence of disease, or results of a test. Prevalence The proportion of people in a defined group who have a disease, condition, or injury. Prognosis The possible outcomes for a given disease and the length of time to those outcomes. Important in studies on therapy, prognosis, or harm, where retrospective studies make hidden biases more likely. Publication bias The possibility that studies with conflicting results (most often negative studies) are less likely to be published. Random selection or assignment Selection process of a sample of the population such that every subject in the population has an equal chance of being selected for each arm of the study. Randomization A technique that gives every patient an equal chance of winding up in any particular arm of a controlled clinical trial. Referral bias Patients entered into a study because they have been referred for a particular test or to a specialty provider. Relative risk The probability of outcome in the group with exposure divided by the probability of outcome in the group without the exposure. Reliability Loose synonym of precision, or the extent to which repeated measurements of the same phenomenon are consistent, reproducible, and dependable. Representativeness heuristic The ease with which a diagnosis is recalled depends on how closely the patient presentation fits the classical presentation of the disease. Research question (hypothesis) A question stating a general prediction of results which the researcher attempts to answer by conducting a study. Retrospective study Any study in which the outcomes have already occurred before the study and collection of data has begun. Risk Probability of an adverse event divided by all of the times one is exposed to that event. Risk factor Any aspect of an individual’s life, behavior, or inheritance that could affect (increase or decrease) the likelihood of an outcome (disease, condition, or injury. Rule out To effectively exclude a diagnosis by making the probability of that disease so low that it effectively is so unlikely to occur or would be considered non-existent. Sampling bias To select patients for study based on some criteria that could relate to the outcome. Sensitivity The ability of a test to identify patients who have disease when it is present. Sensitivity analysis An analytical procedure to determine how the results of a study would change if the input variables are changed. Setting The place in which the testing for a disease occurs, usually referring to level of care. Specificity The ability of a test to identify patients without the disease when it is negative. Spectrum In a diagnostic study, the range of clinical presentations and relevant disease advancement exhibited by the subjects included in the study. Spectrum bias The sensitivity of a test is higher in more severe or “well-developed” cases of a disease, and lower when patients present earlier in the course of disease, or when the disease is occult. Standard gamble A technique to determine patient values by which patients are given a choice between a known outcome and a hypothetical-probabilistic outcome. Stratified randomization A way of ensuring that the different groups in an experimental trial are balanced with respect to some important factors that could affect the outcome. Strategy of exhaustion Listing all possible diseases which a patient could have and running every diagnostic test available and necessary to exclude all diseases on that list until only one is left. Subjective Information from the patient, the history which the patient gives you and which they are experiencing. Surrogate marker An outcome variable that is associated with the outcome of interest, but changes in this marker are not necessarily a direct measure of changes in the clinical outcome of interest. Survival analysis A mathematical analysis of outcome after some kind of therapy in which patients are followed for given a period of time to determine what percentage are still alive or disease-free after that time. Systematic review A formal review of a focused clinical question based on a comprehensive search strategy and structured critical appraisal of all relevant studies. Testing threshold Probability of disease above which we should test before initiating treatment for that disease, and below which we should neither treat nor test. Threshold approach to decision making Determining values of pretest probability below which neither testing nor treatment should be done and above which treatment should be begun without further testing. Time trade-off A method of determining patient utility using a simple question of how much time in perfect health a patient would trade for a given amount of time in imperfect health. Treatment threshold Probability of disease above which we should initiate treatment without first doing the test for the disease. Triggering A thought process which is initiated by recognition of a set of signs and symptoms leading the clinician to think of a particular disease. Two-tailed statistical test Used when alternative hypothesis is non-directional and there is no specification of the direction of differences between the groups. Unadjusted life expectancy (life years) The number of years a person is expected to live based solely on their age at the time. Adjusting would consider lifestyle factors such as smoking, risk-taking, cholesterol, weight, etc. Uncertainty The inability to determine precisely what an outcome would be for a disease or diagnostic test. Validity (1) The degree to which the results of a study are likely to be true, believable and free of bias. Variable Something that can take on different values such as a diagnostic test, risk factor, treatment, outcome, or characteristic of a group. Yule–Simpson paradox A statistical paradox in which one group is superior overall while the other is superior for all of the subgroups.

generic viagra professional 100mg with visa

Before 1990 order 100mg viagra professional with visa, the recovery rate for these cases was around 35 percent purchase viagra professional 100 mg otc; it increased to about 90 percent in 2002 order viagra professional 50mg on-line. Some take the “Just the facts, Ma’am” ap- proach and use the Internet to gather facts about their condition and what to do about it. Others are searching for referral information, answering questions such as, “Where is the best place for me to go to resolve my problem? However consumers may use it, the advent of the Internet has shifted power in medi- cine from one-on-one relationships controlled by professionals to spontaneous, geographically dispersed networks that may include as many as 100,000 participants. Still shell-shocked from his interaction, this Yale-trained internist related that he had diagnosed a long-time patient with a dread- ful rare, systemic, and fatal autoimmune disease that he had never encountered in his practice and had scheduled a treatment plan- ning session with the now-terrified patient to begin addressing her problem. The patient came to the meeting with a two-inch thick binder of articles she had downloaded via the Internet from national and international medical journals. It also contained a basic science section on the potential genetic and molecular basis of the illness. The patient placed the binder on the internist’s desk and said, “Why don’t we start here? When I related this story at one of my presentations, a physician posed the following rhetorical question about the exchange: “Why should I read it [the binder]? As I have subsequently learned, however, this response from physicians is not an unusual one. The “why should I read it” response reflects at least two kernels of truth wrapped in a thick layer of barely examined and ugly emotions. True enough, many physicians do not feel they have enough time to do their jobs properly; and certainly, a lot of the material in the binder may not have been directly relevant to the treatment 104 Digital Medicine planning task at hand. Remember, however, that the physician in Connecticut was deal- ing with a disease he had not treated before and thus needed to research the matter himself to participate meaningfully in the pro- cess. In business, this process is called “outsourcing to the customer,” which is what Federal Express did when it set up its web site to enable a customer to locate a package without going through its call center. By taking the initiative, the patient, not the doctor, took charge of defining medical reality. In the Connecticut example, the physi- cian did not explicitly delegate this task. Rather, the patient “vol- unteered,” in a desperate effort to begin immediately the task of defining her own medical reality and options. The binder repre- sented dozens of hours of tedious review of tens of thousands of page matches, reading, book marking, and downloading. What the angry physician responder also missed was that, how- ever well armed with information, the patient still engaged her physician and relied on his judgment. Rather, their dialog with a growing number of better-informed patients and family members will simply begin at a higher level of knowledge (or uncertainty) about the disease and its treatment options. The Internet is making the role of physician as teacher more explicit and eventually, as we will see in Chapter 8, more efficient. The emotional subtext of the physician’s anger is the feeling that their professional expertise is no longer respected. Whatever other pressures they may feel as members of one of the nation’s most successful and prestigious professions, many physicians feel marginalized by many of the changes that took place in our health- care system during the past 20 years. The diminution of professional authority brought about by the Internet is not exclusive to medicine. Michael Lewis’ recent book The Consumer 105 Next explored the jarring invasion of professional space in law, investing and other disciplines by uncredentialed teenage Inter- net buffs. All knowledge-based professions face the same Internet- spawned leveling of knowledge gradients as medicine. Accommodating these differences will be an important feature of tomorrow’s health system. Many consumers will continue to want the old-style physician-patient relationship and do not wish to be bothered by the rigors of custom-fabricating their own knowledge base. Consumer research has found that some people will want to delegate as much responsibility as possible to their physicians (and perhaps then sue them if things do not work out as they wish). These patients, who rely solely on their physicians for health information, are described as “accepting. They are really looking for wisdom—the thoughtful application of relevant medical knowl- edge to their unique situation. While Internet tools will certainly ac- celerate the flow of medical knowledge, converting that knowledge to wisdom will remain the physician’s burden and responsibility. Although their relationship sometimes contains adversarial ele- ments, physicians and their patients/consumers share two common goals. Both physi- cians and consumers are hungry for knowledge that will help lead to better care decisions. Second, and most important, they are both aligned in wanting to resolve the medical problem that brought them together. Moving from the present state of the medical Internet to a consumer-friendly knowledge re- source is going to take a lot of work and will involve the efforts of practitioners and healthcare executives, as well as consumers. The following is a look at the current situation; later, we will take a look at the future. Currently, the medical Internet is a bewildering mud slide of un- differentiated facts, opinions, pharmaceutical and health provider infomercials, personal web pages constructed by individual patients, bulletin boards and chat rooms hosted by volunteer physicians, sci- entific literature, press releases, and gossip. In addition to all of these sources, I even found articles about wolves (the species is Canus lupus). Of course, if I had just been diagnosed with lupus, which is incurable, my motivation to wade through this information would have more than matched the logistical challenge. The variable quality of medical information on the Internet is a widely acknowledged problem for anyone who uses it. One witty observer likened the current state of the medical Internet to a “virtual Haight/Ashbury. Besides being a site of colorful street theater, it was also an open-air drug bazaar, where one could buy pills of dubious provenance from complete strangers and take one’s chances. According to Harris Interactive, consumers are losing confidence in the In- ternet as a leverage point in their relationship to the medical care system (Figure 5. Despite the many millions invested in healthcare web sites, the medical Internet is daunting and difficult for many consumers to use. A free market economist would point out that the highly variable quality of medical information on the Internet can be attributed to the fact that the information is supposed to be “free. If it is true that “you get what you pay for,” the fact that people have been unwilling to pay for medical information on the Internet has diminished the incentives to create accessible and reliable content and for people with proprietary knowledge to post it. However, despite the logistical problems, when consumers con- front a life-changing illness, the Internet is the principal destination postdiagnosis. Clearly, consumers are going to need help, in addition to that of their physicians, in sorting through all of the potential knowledge domains about a given disease to find the “good stuff”—access to state-of-the-science knowledge and the treatment protocols that are testing that knowledge on the task of curing the disease.

order cheap viagra professional online

There was also a substantial discrepancy in the official package inserts and liver disease labeling between Europe and the United States [3] discount 50mg viagra professional visa. The documentation of the hepatotoxicity of drugs in the medical literature is very variable order viagra professional 100 mg visa. Some drugs have been convincingly documented to cause liver injury in numerous case reports and case series buy viagra professional uk. Many such drugs have a known clinical signature (phenotype) of liver injury and causality has been further documented by instances of a positive rechallenge [4,5]. However, with some drugs, although marketed for many decades, only a single case report or very few reports of liver injury have been published. Case reports are often not well described and critical clinical information is frequently lacking [7]. A recent study found that reports of drug-induced liver diseases often did not provide the data needed to determine the causes of suspected adverse effects [7]. Although a case report has been published, it does not prove that the drug is hepatotoxic. In LiverTox® there is data on almost all medications marketed in the United States, both on those who have been reported to cause liver injury and those without reports of liver injury. Although in LiverTox® a thorough literature search has been undertaken and is provided, no attempt has been made to judge the quality of the published reports or the causality of the suspected liver injury reported. In a recently published paper, drugs in LiverTox® were classified into categories, using all reports in this website [9]. In this critical analysis, many of the published reports did not stand up to critical review and currently there is no convincing evidence for some drugs with reported hepatotoxicity to be hepatotoxic [9]. Although certain drugs have a distinct phenotype such as isoniazid, which generally leads to a hepatocellular pattern or chlorpromazine cholestatic liver damage, many drugs can lead to both hepatocellular and cholestatic injury. Listing all types of patterns that have been reported for all these drugs is unfortunately not possible in this paper. Categories of Hepatotoxicity In the creation of LiverTox, drugs were arbitrarily divided into four different categories of likelihood for causing liver injury based on reports in the published literature [8]. Category A with >50 published reports, B with >12 but less than 50, C with >4 but less than 12, and D with one to three cases. In the Hepatology paper, drugs were categorized based on these numbers and another category, T, was added for agents leading to hepatotoxicity mainly in higher-than-therapeutic doses [9]. The analysis was based mainly on published case reports, but case series were used if a formal causality assessment had been undertaken. In the analysis of the hepatotoxicity of drugs found in LiverTox, fewer drugs than expected had documented hepatotoxicity. Among 671 drugs available for analysis, 353 (53%) had published convincing case reports of hepatotoxicity. Thus, overall, 47% of the drugs listed in LiverTox did not have evidence of hepatotoxicity. This is at odds with product labeling which very frequently lists liver injury as adverse reaction to drugs [3]. It has to be taken into consideration that 116/863 (13%) of marketed agents had be excluded from the analysis. New drugs approved within the last five years were not included as most instances of hepatotoxicity appear in the post-marketing phase [11]. Metals (iron, nickel, arsenic), illegal substances (cocaine, opium, heroin), and infrequently used and/or not available (not marketed currently) drugs were also excluded [9]. Herbal and dietary supplements listed in LiverTox were not included in the category analysis. Among the 671 drugs available for analysis, the proportions of the drugs in the different categories were: A, 48 (14%); B, 76 (22%); C, 96 (27%); and D, 126 (36%). In general, drugs in categories A and B were more likely than those in C and D to have been marketed for a long time, and both were more likely to have at least one fatal case of liver injury and reported cases of positive rechallenge. However, in categories C and D with one to 12 cases reported, it is still not clear whether these agents are really hepatoxic drugs. Category A Although drugs in this category (n = 48) were supposed to have >50 case reports of liver injury associated with the use of these drugs, 81% of the drugs had >100 cases reported. In Table 1, the category A drugs are illustrated with the indication and/or class of drug. Treatment with these drugs should motivate physicians to guide patients about potential symptoms of liver injury when taking these drugs and about prompt discontinuation if these symptoms occur. All except one entity (estrogens-progestins) or 98% had at least one convincing case that was associated with fatal outcome. All of these drugs except telithromycin had been approved for marketing for more than 15 years and 63% for more than 35 years [9]. The most common types of drugs were antimicrobials among 33% of the drugs, followed by drugs acting on the central nervous system (12. Although antimicrobials were the most common agents among drugs, antimicrobials were also the most common agents in categories B (30%), C (19%) and D (27%). There is unfortunately not enough room to discuss many of these well-documented hepatotoxic agents. As mentioned in the abstract, azathioprine and infliximab have in one study been found to be associated with the highest risk of liver injury [9]. Both hepatocellular and cholestatic injury has been described due to azathioprine [8,9]. Despite the common problem of hepatotoxicity with azathioprine, there is a lack of studies with a significant number of well-characterized patients with this type of liver injury. Drugs that, according to analysis of data in LiverTox [8], have been associated with more than 100 cases of drug-induced liver injury. This seems particularly true for drugs with reports of documented rechallenge, which had been reported in at least one case in 38% of the drugs [9]. In comparison with category A drugs, which almost exclusively had been associated with fatality, approximately 50% of category B drugs had been associated with a fatal outcome. Thus, in drugs with less frequent reporting of liver injury in category B, only 38% had rechallenge reported vs. Drugs in category B (>12 and >40 cases) that, according to analysis of data in LiverTox [8], have been associated with >30 published case reports of drug induced liver injury. Categories C, D and E Overall, 222/353 (63%) of drugs in LiverTox® with hepatotoxicity fall into categories C and D. Compared with category D, with only one to three cases reported, category C (<12 and >4 case reports) drugs were more likely to have rechallenge reports, with 26% vs. A positive rechallenge is usually defined with biochemical criteria, showing recurrence of liver test abnormalities upon readministration of the drug, due to either intentional or inadvertent re-exposure [4,5].

Viagra Professional
9 of 10 - Review by O. Ashton
Votes: 321 votes
Total customer reviews: 321

Comments are closed.

Login