Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Item Type
      Item Type
      Clear All
      Item Type
  • Subject
      Subject
      Clear All
      Subject
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
43 result(s) for "Rimmer, Elizabeth"
Sort by:
Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study
100 years after the first description, Alzheimer's disease is one of the most disabling and burdensome health conditions worldwide. We used the Delphi consensus method to determine dementia prevalence for each world region. 12 international experts were provided with a systematic review of published studies on dementia and were asked to provide prevalence estimates for every WHO world region, for men and women combined, in 5-year age bands from 60 to 84 years, and for those aged 85 years and older. UN population estimates and projections were used to estimate numbers of people with dementia in 2001, 2020, and 2040. We estimated incidence rates from prevalence, remission, and mortality. Evidence from well-planned, representative epidemiological surveys is scarce in many regions. We estimate that 24·3 million people have dementia today, with 4·6 million new cases of dementia every year (one new case every 7 seconds). The number of people affected will double every 20 years to 81·1 million by 2040. Most people with dementia live in developing countries (60% in 2001, rising to 71% by 2040). Rates of increase are not uniform; numbers in developed countries are forecast to increase by 100% between 2001 and 2040, but by more than 300% in India, China, and their south Asian and western Pacific neighbours. We believe that the detailed estimates in this paper constitute the best currently available basis for policymaking, planning, and allocation of health and welfare resources.
Extension of cervical screening intervals with primary human papillomavirus testing: observational study of English screening pilot data
AbstractObjectivesTo provide updated evidence about the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+) and cervical cancer after a negative human papillomavirus (HPV) test in primary cervical screening, by age group and test assay.DesignObservational study.SettingReal world data from the English HPV screening pilot’s first and second rounds (2013-16, follow-up to end of 2019).Participants1 341 584 women.InterventionsCervical screening with HPV testing or liquid based cytological testing (cytology or smear tests). Women screened with cytology were referred to colposcopy after high grade cytological abnormalities or after borderline or low grade abnormalities combined with a positive HPV triage test. Women screened with HPV testing who were positive were referred at baseline if their cytology triage test showed at least borderline abnormalities or after a retest (early recall) at 12 and 24 months if they had persistent abnormalities.Main outcome measuresDetection of CIN3+ and cervical cancer after a negative HPV test.ResultsFor women younger than 50 years, second round detection of CIN3+ in this study was significantly lower after a negative HPV screen in the first round than after cytology testing (1.21/1000 v 4.52/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.30), as was the risk of interval cervical cancer (1.31/100 000 v 2.90/100 000 woman years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.44, 0.23 to 0.84). Risk of an incident CIN3+ detected at the second screening round in the pilot five years after a negative HPV test was even lower in women older than 50 years, than in three years in women younger than 50 years (0.57/1000 v 1.21/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 0.46, 0.27 to 0.79). Women with negative HPV tests at early recall after a positive HPV screening test without cytological abnormalities had a higher detection rate of CIN3+ at the second routine recall than women who initially tested HPV negative (5.39/1000 v 1.21/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 3.27, 95% confidence interval 2.21 to 4.84). Detection after a negative result on a clinically validated APTIMA mRNA HPV test was similar to that after clinically validated cobas and RealTime DNA tests (for CIN3+ at the second round 1.32/1000 v 1.14/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 1.05, 0.73 to 1.50).ConclusionsThese data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used: to five years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older. The screening interval for HPV positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at three years.
WHO should work to develop Alzheimer's standards
People with dementia and their carers are neglected throughout the world especially in developing countries -where two out of three people with dementia live.
Letter: Dementia drugs on trial
The Alzheimer's Society is not unique in receiving contributions from pharmaceutical companies and does so in accordance with strict guidelines.
Dementia drugs on trial
The study of 565 people (Alzheimer's drugs a waste of money, June 25) in fact confirms what 31 other trials have shown: that the drug treatments do bring significant benefits. It showed they bring six to 12 months' worth of...
As an immigration judge I already knew the frightening incompetence of ; EXCLUSIVE: The woman judge at the centre of the sensational sex
'Even when the court had decided to lift Judge [Mohammad Ilyas Khan]'s anonymity which could potentially have led to my name coming out, they didn't tell me. Instead they let me go into court and be cross-examined. To this day, I still don't know what the case for the prosecution was. Even on Friday, the Press called me before the police did to tell me that she had been set free.' Judge J has mixed feelings about the fact that the case fell down because she was too ill to give evidence. She says: 'Had I been able to give evidence at the retrial I'm not sure justice would have been served. I've got no faith in the system. The whole thing sickens me. What justice? It's not the justice system, it's the British lottery system.' In some ways the judge has perhaps had a lucky escape given that so many people had lined up to give evidence against her at the trial. She is of course hurt they decided to do so, but not surprised. As we finish talking, suddenly there is a lot of clattering in the hallway. A smiling face peers through the doorway and a stout, dark-haired girl says in an indisputably foreign accent: 'I finish now.' 'Oh, don't worry,' says Judge J, 'that's the cleaner.' Asked where the cleaner is from, the Judge says: 'Oh, I don't know, I haven't a clue. Poland? Ukraine? Somewhere like that.' 'I hope you've checked her status,' she is asked jokingly. 'No, I've no idea,' she says with a resigned laugh and a wave of her hand.