RSS: organization:american osteopathic association

organization:american osteopathic association

  • @monolecte
    Monolecte 😷🤬 CC BY-NC-SA
    2
    @simplicissimus
    @02myseenthis01
    2

    Si tu as des calculs rénaux, va plutôt te faire centrifuger chez Disney !

    Roller Coasters Could Help People Pass Kidney Stones - The Atlantic
    ▻https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/09/for-kidney-health-roller-coaster-therapy/501278

    https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2016/09/20160812.GK.6717/facebook.jpg?1474905922

    “What was amazing was within just a few rides it became obvious that there was a huge difference in passage rates whether you sat in the front or the rear of the coaster,” Wartinger tells me. “There was a lot more whipping around in that rear car.”

    The stones passed 63.89 percent of the time while the kidneys were in the back of the car. When they were in the front, the passage rate was only 16.67 percent. That’s based on only 60 rides on a single coaster, and Wartinger guards his excitement in the journal article: “Preliminary study findings support the anecdotal evidence that a ride on a moderate-intensity roller coaster could benefit some patients with small kidney stones.”

    Monolecte 😷🤬 CC BY-NC-SA
    • @simplicissimus
      Simplicissimus

      L’article original

      Validation of a Functional Pyelocalyceal Renal Model for the Evaluation of Renal Calculi Passage While Riding a Roller Coaster | The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association
      ▻http://jaoa.org/article.aspx?articleid=2557373

      Abstract
      Context: The identification and evaluation of activities capable of dislodging calyceal renal calculi require a patient surrogate or validated functional pyelocalyceal renal model.

      Objective: To evaluate #roller_coaster facilitation of calyceal renal calculi passage using a functional pyelocalyceal renal model.

      Methods: A previously described adult ureteroscopy and renoscopy simulator (Ideal Anatomic) was modified and remolded to function as a patient surrogate. Three renal calculi of different sizes from the patient who provided the original computed tomographic urograph on which the simulator was based were used. The renal calculi were suspended in urine in the model and taken for 20 rides on the Big Thunder Mountain Railroad roller coaster at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida. The roller coaster rides were analyzed using variables of renal calculi volume, calyceal location, model position on the roller coaster, and renal calculi passage.

      Results: Sixty renal calculi rides were analyzed. Independent of renal calculi volume and calyceal location, front seating on the roller coaster resulted in a passage rate of 4 of 24. Independent of renal calculi volume and calyceal location, rear seating on the roller coaster resulted in a passage rate of 23 of 36. Independent of renal calculi volume in rear seating, calyceal location differed in passage rates, with an upper calyceal calculi passage rate of 100%; a middle calyceal passage rate of 55.6%; and a lower calyceal passage rate of 40.0%.

      Conclusion: The functional pyelocalyceal renal model serves as a functional patient surrogate to evaluate activities that facilitate calyceal renal calculi passage. The rear seating position on the roller coaster led to the most renal calculi passages.

      Simplicissimus
    Écrire un commentaire
  • @simplicissimus
    Simplicissimus
    4
    @fil
    @james
    @geneghys
    @silvae
    4

    Study: Most Health Info on Wikipedia Inaccurate - myChamplainValley.com
    ▻http://www.mychamplainvalley.com/story/d/story/study-most-health-info-on-wikipedia-inaccurate/98868/aWRYbbZ3OEKQsiAgErdLfg

    The study, just published in The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, tested the reliability of the crowd-sourced entries on the Wikipedia page.

    Researchers looked at the ten most costly medical conditions in the country, like lung cancer, back pain and osteoarthritis.

    They found the Wikipedia entries contradict medical research for peer-reviewed journals, a whopping 90 percent of the time. Information on nine out of the ten entries had errors.

    But it’s not just those of us at home who are using it. The study also found that 47 percent to 70 percent of physicians and medical students use it as a reference.

    So, not surprisingly, the researchers conclude caution should be used when using websites, for any medical questions.

    #selon_une_étude_récente

    Simplicissimus
    • @simplicissimus
      Simplicissimus

      L’article original est en libre accès. Après avoir traité de discordance dans la description de la méthodologie :

      Wikipedia vs Peer-Reviewed Medical Literature for Information About the 10 Most Costly Medical Conditions
      ▻http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368.full.pdf+html

      We used a Webbased randomizer (www.random.org) to assign the selected Wikipedia articles to each reviewer. Reviewers were asked to identify every assertion (ie, implication or statement of fact) in the Wikipedia article and to factcheck each assertion against a peer-reviewed source that was published or updated within the past 5 years. Reviewers were sent an e-mail containing examples of assertions (eg, “diuretics are the initial drug of choice for essential hypertension without co-morbidities”). The authors instructed the reviewers to use UpToDate (www.uptodate.com) as the initial means by which to search for peer-reviewed sources. If UpToDate did not produce adequate results, then each reviewer was instructed to use PubMed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed), Google Scholar (scholar.google.com/), or a search engine of their choice. Each reviewer then reported concordance or discordance between Wikipedia and the peer-reviewed sources.

      Il introduit le mot error dans la conclusion

      Most Wikipedia articles for the 10 costliest conditions in the United States contain errors compared with standard peer-reviewed sources. Health care professionals, trainees, and patients should use caution when using Wikipedia to answer questions regarding patient care.
      Our findings reinforce the idea that physicians and medical students who currently use Wikipedia as a medical reference should be discouraged from doing so because of the potential for errors.

      Simplicissimus
    • @simplicissimus
      Simplicissimus

      L’éditorial du journal traite de cet article. Après en avoir rappelé quelques limites, il conclut :

      Wikipedia : Proceed With Caution
      ▻http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/334.full.pdf+html

      Wikipedia has a place in literature searching, but it is best used as a starting point rather than an ending point

      Et s’intéresse surtout à son utilisation par le corps médical.

      Would I want my physician to consult Wikipedia about my condition? No. Physicians and medical students, spend your time consulting a credible, peer reviewed, evidence-based resource. And if you do not know how to do this, let your reference librarian teach you.

      Simplicissimus
    Écrire un commentaire