<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:extra="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <channel rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/feeds/latestarticles/journal?journal=bmcmed&amp;quantity=&amp;format=rss&amp;version=">
        <title>BMC Medicine - Latest Articles</title>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmed/</link>
        <description>The latest research articles published by BMC Medicine</description>
        <dc:date>2009-07-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/32" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/31" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/30" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/29" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/28" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/27" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/26" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/25" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/24" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/23" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
        <extra:info rdf:parseType="Literal">
            <html:div style="font:14px Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
                <html:span style="font-weight:bold">
                    This is an RSS newsfeed from BioMed Central
                </html:span>
                <html:br />
                <html:span style="font-size: 12px;">
                    It is intended to be used with an RSS reader. For more information about RSS newsfeeds from BioMed Central, visit
                    <html:br />
                    <html:a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/" style="color:#3333CC; font-size:12px;">
                        http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/
                    </html:a>
                    <html:br />
                </html:span>
            </html:div>
        </extra:info>
        <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/32">
        <title>Effects of clinical pathways in the joint replacement: a meta-analysis</title>
        <description>Background:
A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the use of clinical pathways for hip and knee joint replacements when compared with standard medical care. The impact of clinical pathways was evaluated assessing the major outcomes of in-hospital hip and knee joint replacement processes: postoperative complications, number of patients discharged at home, length of in-hospital stay and direct costs.
Methods:
Medline, Cinahl, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. The search was performed from 1975 to 2007. Each study was assessed independently by two reviewers. The assessment of methodological quality of the included studies was based on the Jadad methodological approach and on the New Castle Ottawa Scale. Data analysis abided by the guidelines set out by The Cochrane Collaboration regarding statistical methods. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan software, version 4.2.
Results:
Twenty-two studies met the study inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis for a total sample of 6,316 patients. The aggregate overall results showed significantly fewer patients suffering postoperative complications in the clinical pathways group when compared with the standard care group. A shorter length of stay in the clinical pathway group was also observed and lower costs during hospital stay were associated with the use of the clinical pathways. No significant differences were found in the rates of discharge to home.
Conclusion:
The results of this meta-analysis show that clinical pathways can significantly improve the quality of care even if it is not possible to conclude that the implementation of clinical pathways is a cost-effective process, because none of the included studies analysed the cost of the development and implementation of the pathways. Based on the results we assume that pathways have impact on the organisation of care if the care process is structured in a standardised way, teams critically analyse the actual organisation of the process and the multidisciplinary team is highly involved in the re-organisation. Further studies should focus on the evaluation of pathways as complex interventions to help to understand which mechanisms within the clinical pathways can really improve the quality of care. With the need for knee and hip joint replacement on the rise, the use of clinical pathways might contribute to better quality of care and cost-effectiveness.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/32</link>
                <dc:creator>A Barbieri</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>K Vanhaecht</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>P Van Herck</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>W Sermeus</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>F Faggiano</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>S Marchisio</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>M Panella</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medicine 2009, 7:32</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-07-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1741-7015-7-32</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medicine</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1741-7015</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>32</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/31">
        <title>Recent trends in breast cancer incidence in US white women by urban/rural and poverty status</title>
        <description>Background:
Unprecedented declines in invasive breast cancer rates occurred in the United States between 2001 and 2004, particularly for estrogen receptor-positive tumors among non-Hispanic white women over 50 years. To understand the broader public health import of these reductions among previously unstudied populations, we utilized the largest available US cancer registry resource to describe age-adjusted invasive and in situ breast cancer incidence trends for non-Hispanic white women aged 50 to 74 years overall and by county-level rural/urban and poverty status.
Methods:
We obtained invasive and in situ breast cancer incidence data for the years 1997 to 2004 from 29 population-based cancer registries participating in the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries resource. Annual age-adjusted rates were examined overall and by rural/urban and poverty of patients&apos; counties of residence at diagnosis. Joinpoint regression was used to assess trends by annual quarter of diagnosis.
Results:
Between 2001 and 2004, overall invasive breast cancer incidence fell 13.2%, with greater reductions among women living in urban (-13.8%) versus rural (-7.5%) and low- (-13.0%) or middle- (-13.8%) versus high- (-9.6%) poverty counties. Most incidence rates peaked around 1999 then declined after second quarter 2002, although in rural counties, rates decreased monotonically after 1999. Similar but more attenuated patterns were seen for in situ cancers.
Conclusion:
Breast cancer rates fell more substantially in urban and low-poverty, affluent counties than in rural or high-poverty counties. These patterns likely reflect a major influence of reductions in hormone therapy use after July 2002 but cannot exclude possible effects due to screening patterns, particularly among rural populations where hormone therapy use was probably less prevalent.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/31</link>
                <dc:creator>Amelia Hausauer</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Theresa Keegan</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ellen Chang</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sally Glaser</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Holly Howe</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Christina Clarke</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medicine 2009, 7:31</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-06-26T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1741-7015-7-31</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medicine</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1741-7015</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>31</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-06-26T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/30">
        <title>Modeling influenza epidemics and pandemics: insights into the future of swine flu (H1N1)</title>
        <description>Here we present a review of the literature of influenza modeling studies, and discuss how these models can provide insights into the future of the currently circulating novel strain of influenza A (H1N1), formerly known as swine flu. We discuss how the feasibility of controlling an epidemic critically depends on the value of the Basic Reproduction Number (R0). The R0 for novel influenza A (H1N1) has recently been estimated to be between 1.4 and 1.6. This value is below values of R0 estimated for the 1918-1919 pandemic strain (mean R0 ~ 2:  range 1.4 to 2.8) and is comparable to R0 values estimated for seasonal strains of influenza (mean R0 1.3: range 0.9 to 2.1). By reviewing results from previous modeling studies we conclude it is likely that a pandemic of H1N1 could be contained, but a cooperative global control strategy will be imperative. If this does not occur, resource-constrained and resource-poor countries will suffer from a significantly disproportionate burden of disease. We discuss the necessity for formulating new mathematical models that simultaneously track the transmission dynamics of multiple strains of influenza in bird, pig, and human populations. We show, by modeling cross-species transmission, how it may be possible to predict the emergence of pandemic strains of influenza. The biologically complex models that we are recommending be developed could be critical for identifying effective new interventions, and informing pandemic preparedness planning.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/30</link>
                <dc:creator>Brian Coburn</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Bradley Wagner</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sally Blower</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medicine 2009, 7:30</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-06-22T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1741-7015-7-30</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medicine</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1741-7015</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>30</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-06-22T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/29">
        <title>New perspectives in human stem cell therapeutic research
</title>
        <description>Human stem cells are in evaluation in clinical stem cell trials, primarily as autologous bone marrow studies, autologous and allogenic mesenchymal stem cell trials, and some allogenic neural stem cell transplantation projects. Safety and efficacy are being addressed for a number of disease state applications. There is considerable data supporting safety of bone marrow and mesenchymal stem cell transplants but the efficacy data are variable and of mixed benefit. Mechanisms of action of many of these cells are unknown and this raises the concern of unpredictable results in the future. Nevertheless there is considerable optimism that immune suppression and anti-inflammatory properties of mesenchymal stem cells will be of benefit for many conditions such as graft versus host disease, solid organ transplants and pulmonary fibrosis. Where bone marrow and mesenchymal stem cells are being studied for heart disease, stroke and other neurodegenerative disorders, again progress is mixed and mostly without significant benefit. However, correction of multiple sclerosis, at least in the short term is encouraging. Clinical trials on the use of embryonic stem cell derivatives for spinal injury and macular degeneration are beginning and a raft of other clinical trials can be expected soon, for example, the use of neural stem cells for killing inoperable glioma and embryonic stem cells for regenerating &#946; islet cells for diabetes. The change in attitude to embryonic stem cell research with the incoming Obama administration heralds a new co-operative environment for study and evaluation of stem cell therapies. The Californian stem cell initiative (California Institute for Regenerative Medicine) has engendered global collaboration for this new medicine that will now also be supported by the US Federal Government. The active participation of governments, academia, biotechnology, pharmaceutical companies, and private investment is a powerful consortium for advances in health.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/29</link>
                <dc:creator>Alan Trounson</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medicine 2009, 7:29</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-06-11T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1741-7015-7-29</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medicine</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1741-7015</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>29</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-06-11T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/28">
        <title>Measuring the effect of enhanced cleaning in a UK hospital: a prospective cross-over study</title>
        <description>Background:
Increasing hospital-acquired infections have generated much attention over the last decade. There is evidence that hygienic cleaning has a role in the control of hospital-acquired infections. This study aimed to evaluate the potential impact of one additional cleaner by using microbiological standards based on aerobic colony counts and the presence of Staphylococcus aureus including meticillin-resistant S. aureus.
Methods:
We introduced an additional cleaner into two matched wards from Monday to Friday, with each ward receiving enhanced cleaning for six months in a cross-over design. Ten hand-touch sites on both wards were screened weekly using standardised methods and patients were monitored for meticillin-resistant S. aureus infection throughout the year-long study. Patient and environmental meticillin-resistant S. aureus isolates were characterised using molecular methods in order to investigate temporal and clonal relationships.
Results:
Enhanced cleaning was associated with a 32.5% reduction in levels of microbial contamination at hand-touch sites when wards received enhanced cleaning (P &lt; 0.0001: 95% CI 20.2%, 42.9%). Near-patient sites (lockers, overbed tables and beds) were more frequently contaminated with meticillin-resistant S. aureus/S. aureus than sites further from the patient (P = 0.065). Genotyping identified indistinguishable strains from both hand-touch sites and patients. There was a 26.6% reduction in new meticillin-resistant S. aureus infections on the wards receiving extra cleaning, despite higher meticillin-resistant S. aureus patient-days and bed occupancy rates during enhanced cleaning periods (P = 0.032: 95% CI 7.7%, 92.3%). Adjusting for meticillin-resistant S. aureus patient-days and based upon nine new meticillin-resistant S. aureus infections seen during routine cleaning, we expected 13 new infections during enhanced cleaning periods rather than the four that actually occurred. Clusters of new meticillin-resistant S. aureus infections were identified 2 to 4 weeks after the cleaner left both wards. Enhanced cleaning saved the hospital &#163;30,000 to &#163;70,000.
Conclusion:
Introducing one extra cleaner produced a measurable effect on the clinical environment, with apparent benefit to patients regarding meticillin-resistant S. aureus infection. Molecular epidemiological methods supported the possibility that patients acquired meticillin-resistant S. aureus from environmental sources. These findings suggest that additional research is warranted to further clarify the environmental, clinical and economic impact of enhanced hygienic cleaning as a component in the control of hospital-acquired infection.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/28</link>
                <dc:creator>Stephanie Dancer</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Liza White</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jim Lamb</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>E Girvan</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Chris Robertson</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medicine 2009, 7:28</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-06-08T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1741-7015-7-28</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medicine</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1741-7015</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>28</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-06-08T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/27">
        <title>Calculating the return on investment of mobile healthcare</title>
        <description>Background:
Mobile health clinics provide an alternative portal into the healthcare system for the medically disenfranchised, that is, people who are underinsured, uninsured or who are otherwise outside of mainstream healthcare due to issues of trust, language, immigration status or simply location. Mobile health clinics as providers of last resort are an essential component of the healthcare safety net providing prevention, screening, and appropriate triage into mainstream services. Despite the face value of providing services to underserved populations, a focused analysis of the relative value of the mobile health clinic model has not been elucidated. The question that the return on investment algorithm has been designed to answer is: can the value of the services provided by mobile health programs be quantified in terms of quality adjusted life years saved and estimated emergency department expenditures avoided?
Methods:
Using a sample mobile health clinic and published research that quantifies health outcomes, we developed and tested an algorithm to calculate the return on investment of a typical broad-service mobile health clinic: the relative value of mobile health clinic services = annual projected emergency department costs avoided + value of potential life years saved from the services provided. Return on investment ratio = the relative value of the mobile health clinic services/annual cost to run the mobile health clinic.
Results:
Based on service data provided by The Family Van for 2008 we calculated the annual cost savings from preventing emergency room visits, $3,125,668 plus the relative value of providing 7 of the top 25 priority prevention services during the same period, US$17,780,000 for a total annual value of $20,339,968. Given that the annual cost to run the program was $567,700, the calculated return on investment of The Family Van was 36:1.
Conclusion:
By using published data that quantify the value of prevention practices and the value of preventing unnecessary use of emergency departments, an empirical method was developed to determine the value of a typical mobile health clinic. The Family Van, a mobile health clinic that has been serving the medically disenfranchised of Boston for 16 years, was evaluated accordingly and found to have return on investment of $36 for every $1 invested in the program.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/27</link>
                <dc:creator>Nancy Oriol</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Paul Cote</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Anthony Vavasis</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jennifer Bennet</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Darien DeLorenzo</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Phillip Blanc</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Isaac Kohane</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medicine 2009, 7:27</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-06-02T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1741-7015-7-27</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medicine</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1741-7015</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>27</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-06-02T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/26">
        <title>Varicella vaccination in Europe - taking the practical approach
</title>
        <description>Varicella is a common viral disease affecting almost the entire birth cohort. Although usually self-limiting, some cases of varicella can be serious, with 2 to 6% of cases attending a general practice resulting in complications. The hospitalisation rate for varicella in Europe ranges from 1.3 to 4.5 per 100,000 population/year and up to 10.1% of hospitalised patients report permanent or possible permanent sequelae (for example, scarring or ataxia). However, in many countries the epidemiology of varicella remains largely unknown or incomplete.In countries where routine childhood vaccination against varicella has been implemented, it has had a positive effect on disease prevention and control. Furthermore, mathematical models indicate that this intervention strategy may provide economic benefits for the individual and society. Despite this evidence and recommendations for varicella vaccination by official bodies such as the World Health Organization, and scientific experts in the field, the majority of European countries (with the exception of Germany and Greece) have delayed decisions on implementation of routine childhood varicella vaccination, choosing instead to vaccinate high-risk groups or not to vaccinate at all.In this paper, members of the Working Against Varicella in Europe group consider the practicalities of introducing routine childhood varicella vaccination in Europe, discussing the benefits and challenges of different vaccination options (vaccination vs. no vaccination, routine vaccination of infants vs. vaccination of susceptible adolescents or adults, two doses vs. one dose of varicella vaccine, monovalent varicella vaccines vs. tetravalent measles, mumps, rubella and varicella vaccines, as well as the optimal interval between two doses of measles, mumps, rubella and varicella vaccines).Assessment of the epidemiology of varicella in Europe and evidence for the effectiveness of varicella vaccination provides support for routine childhood programmes in Europe. Although European countries are faced with challenges or uncertainties that may have delayed implementation of a childhood vaccination programme, many of these concerns remain hypothetical and with new opportunities offered by combined measles, mumps, rubella and varicella vaccines, reassessment may be timely.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/26</link>
                <dc:creator>Paolo Bonanni</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Judith Breuer</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Anne Gershon</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Michael Gershon</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Waleria Hryniewicz</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Vana Papaevangelou</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Bernard Rentier</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Hans Rumke</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Catherine Sadzot-Delvaux</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jacques Senterre</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Catherine Weil-Olivier</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Peter Wutzler</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medicine 2009, 7:26</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-05-28T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1741-7015-7-26</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medicine</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1741-7015</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>26</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-05-28T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/25">
        <title>Trace elements in hemodialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title>
        <description>Background:
Hemodialysis patients are at risk for deficiency of essential trace elements and excess of toxic trace elements, both of which can affect health. We conducted a systematic review to summarize existing literature on trace element status in hemodialysis patients.
Methods:
All studies which reported relevant data for chronic hemodialysis patients and a healthy control population were eligible, regardless of language or publication status. We included studies which measured at least one of the following elements in whole blood, serum, or plasma: antimony, arsenic, boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, fluorine, iodine, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, tellurium, thallium, vanadium, and zinc. We calculated differences between hemodialysis patients and controls using the differences in mean trace element level, divided by the pooled standard deviation.
Results:
We identified 128 eligible studies. Available data suggested that levels of cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and vanadium were higher and that levels of selenium, zinc and manganese were lower in hemodialysis patients, compared with controls. Pooled standard mean differences exceeded 0.8 standard deviation units (a large difference) higher than controls for cadmium, chromium, vanadium, and lower than controls for selenium, zinc, and manganese. No studies reported data on antimony, iodine, tellurium, and thallium concentrations.
Conclusion:
Average blood levels of biologically important trace elements were substantially different in hemodialysis patients, compared with healthy controls. Since both deficiency and excess of trace elements are potentially harmful yet amenable to therapy, the hypothesis that trace element status influences the risk of adverse clinical outcomes is worthy of investigation.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/25</link>
                <dc:creator>Marcello Tonelli</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Natasha Wiebe</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Brenda Hemmelgarn</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Scott Klarenbach</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Catherine Field</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Braden Manns</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ravi Thadhani</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>John Gill</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Alberta Kidney Disease Network</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medicine 2009, 7:25</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-05-19T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1741-7015-7-25</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medicine</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1741-7015</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>25</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-05-19T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/24">
        <title>Preventing contrast-induced nephropathy: problems, challenges and future directions</title>
        <description>Contrast-induced nephropathy is an injury to the kidney occurring as a result of exposure to intravascular contrast media. It results in both short- and long-term adverse events including mortality. Since treatment of the injury after it has occurred is ineffective, efforts to prevent the injury are the focus of investigators and clinicians alike. In this commentary, the pathogenesis and clinical relevance of contrast-induced nephropathy are reviewed. Prophylactic strategies are discussed with a focus on the use of meta-analysis of small single-center trials.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/24</link>
                <dc:creator>Richard Solomon</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medicine 2009, 7:24</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-05-13T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1741-7015-7-24</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medicine</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1741-7015</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>24</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-05-13T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/23">
        <title>Sodium bicarbonate-based hydration prevents contrast-induced nephropathy: a meta-analysis
</title>
        <description>Background:
Contrast-induced nephropathy is the leading cause of in-hospital acute renal failure. This side effect of contrast agents leads to increased morbidity, mortality, and health costs. Ensuring adequate hydration prior to contrast exposure is highly effective at preventing this complication, although the optimal hydration strategy to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy still remains an unresolved issue. Former meta-analyses and several recent studies have shown conflicting results regarding the protective effect of sodium bicarbonate. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of normal saline versus sodium bicarbonate for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy.
Methods:
The study searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts database, ISI Web of Science (until 15 December 2008), and conference proceedings for randomized controlled trials that compared normal saline with sodium bicarbonate-based hydration regimen regarding contrast-induced nephropathy. Random-effects models were used to calculate summary odds ratios.
Results:
A total of 17 trials including 2,633 subjects were pooled. Pre-procedural hydration with sodium bicarbonate was associated with a significant decrease in the rate of contrast-induced nephropathy (odds ratios 0.52; 95% confidence interval 0.34&#8211;0.80, P = 0.003). Number needed to treat to prevent one case of contrast-induced nephropathy was 16 (95% confidence interval 10&#8211;34). No significant differences in the rates of post-procedure hemodialysis (P = 0.20) or death (P = 0.53) was observed.
Conclusion:
Sodium bicarbonate-based hydration was found to be superior to normal saline in prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in this updated meta-analysis.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/23</link>
                <dc:creator>Pascal Meier</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Dennis Ko</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Akira Tamura</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Umesh Tamhane</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Hitinder Gurm</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medicine 2009, 7:23</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-05-13T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1741-7015-7-23</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medicine</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1741-7015</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>23</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-05-13T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" />
    </cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>
