Download the Free Unbound MEDLINE PubMed App to your smartphone or tablet.
Available for iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, and Android.
Geiger counter [keywords]
- Ultrasonography versus computed tomography for suspected nephrolithiasis. [Journal Article, Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.]
- N Engl J Med 2014 Sep 18; 371(12):1100-10.
There is a lack of consensus about whether the initial imaging method for patients with suspected nephrolithiasis should be computed tomography (CT) or ultrasonography.In this multicenter, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness trial, we randomly assigned patients 18 to 76 years of age who presented to the emergency department with suspected nephrolithiasis to undergo initial diagnostic ultrasonography performed by an emergency physician (point-of-care ultrasonography), ultrasonography performed by a radiologist (radiology ultrasonography), or abdominal CT. Subsequent management, including additional imaging, was at the discretion of the physician. We compared the three groups with respect to the 30-day incidence of high-risk diagnoses with complications that could be related to missed or delayed diagnosis and the 6-month cumulative radiation exposure. Secondary outcomes were serious adverse events, related serious adverse events (deemed attributable to study participation), pain (assessed on an 11-point visual-analogue scale, with higher scores indicating more severe pain), return emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and diagnostic accuracy.A total of 2759 patients underwent randomization: 908 to point-of-care ultrasonography, 893 to radiology ultrasonography, and 958 to CT. The incidence of high-risk diagnoses with complications in the first 30 days was low (0.4%) and did not vary according to imaging method. The mean 6-month cumulative radiation exposure was significantly lower in the ultrasonography groups than in the CT group (P<0.001). Serious adverse events occurred in 12.4% of the patients assigned to point-of-care ultrasonography, 10.8% of those assigned to radiology ultrasonography, and 11.2% of those assigned to CT (P=0.50). Related adverse events were infrequent (incidence, 0.4%) and similar across groups. By 7 days, the average pain score was 2.0 in each group (P=0.84). Return emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and diagnostic accuracy did not differ significantly among the groups.Initial ultrasonography was associated with lower cumulative radiation exposure than initial CT, without significant differences in high-risk diagnoses with complications, serious adverse events, pain scores, return emergency department visits, or hospitalizations. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.).
- In vitro comparison between the image obtained using PSP plates and Kodak E-speed films. [Comparative Study, In Vitro, Journal Article]
- Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim 2014 Jul; 31(3):33-8, 61.
The aim of this study was to compare the intra-oral radiographic images obtained by a PSP digital radiography system ("Orex", Israel) with that obtained using Kodak Ultra speed films in terms of image quality, radiation dosage and diagnostic value.The physical measurement of image quality was conducted with an aluminum step-wedge. Radiation dosage was measured with a dosimeter. Fog and base levels were measured by developing unexposed films and scanning unexposed PSP plates. The in vitro model included preparation and radiographic evaluation of approximal artificial lesions in premolars and molars in depths ranging from 0.25 mm to 1.00 mm. Radiographs were evaluated for the existence of a lesion and its size by 8 experienced clinicians.Relative contrast was similar in both methods. The resolving power of the digital system was lower than that of the E-speed film. As for the subjective evaluation of artificial lesions, there was no significant difference between the two methods excluding those tooth images without lesions, where the analog method was found to be more accurate.The PSP system ("Orex") provides good image quality and diagnostic information with reduced exposure when compared with E-speed film.
- [Lung cancer screening in Japan -present and future]. [Journal Article]
- Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 2014 Aug; 41(8):955-9.
- The effect of interincisal opening, cavity location and operator experience on the energy delivered by a light-curing unit to a simulated dental restoration. [Comparative Study, Journal Article]
- Prim Dent J 2014 May; 3(2):26-31.
Curing of resin-based composites depends on the delivery of adequate total energy, which may be operator dependent. Aim To determine the effect of interincisal opening, cavity location and operator experience on the total energy delivered to simulated cavity preparation sites.Three cohorts were included: junior dental nurses, senior dental nurses and qualified dentists (N=5, each cohort). Each operator (participant) followed the same procedure and light-cured two simulated restorations in a MARC patient simulator using a Demi light-curing unit for 20 seconds in each of the following situations: left upper second molar (UL7), interincisal opening at both 25 mm and 45 mm; upper central incisor (UR1), interincisal opening at 45mm. The light energy delivered by each operator in each situation was recorded. Five readings for each operator were taken at each interincisal distance. Statistical comparisons of delivered energy (J/cm2) between interincisal openings, location and groups in the total energy delivered were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test: alpha = 0.05.Less total energy was delivered to the posterior cavity at 25mm (12.0 +/- 5.3 J/cm2) than at 45mm (16.9 +/- 5.6 J/cm2) by all operators (P < 0.05). At 45 mm, less total energy was delivered to the posterior cavity compared to the anterior cavity (25.1 +/- 7.4 J/cm2; P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between junior nurses and qualified dentists (P > 0.05) but there was a significant difference in the total energy delivered between senior nurses (20.1 +/- 7.8 J/cm2) and junior nurses (17.5 +/- 7.6 J/cm2) and between senior nurses and qualified dentists (16.6 +/- 8.7 J/cm2) (P < 0.05).Interincisal mouth opening, location of the cavity and operator experience affected the total energy delivered to cavities in a simulated clinical environment.
- Health initiatives for the prevention of skin cancer. [Journal Article]
- Adv Exp Med Biol 2014.:485-99.
Skin cancer is the most frequent type of cancer in white population worldwide. However, because the most prominent risk factor-solar UV-radiation and/or artificial UV from sunbeds-is known, skin cancer is highly preventable be primary prevention. This prevention needs, that the public is informed by simple and balanced messages about the possible harms and benefits of UV-exposure and how a person should behave under certain conditions of UV-exposure. For this purpose information and recommendations for the public must be age- and target-group specific to cover all periods of life and to reach all sub-groups of a population, continuously. There is a need that political institutions together with Health Institutions and Societies (e.g., European Commission, WHO, EUROSKIN, ICNIRP, etc.), which are responsible for primary prevention of skin cancer, find a common language to inform the public, in order not to confuse it. This is especially important in connection with the ongoing Vitamin D debate, where possible positive effects of UV have to be balanced with the well known skin cancer risk of UV. A continuously ongoing evaluation of interventions and programs in primary prevention is a pre-requisite to assess the effectiveness of strategies. There is surely no "no message fits all" approach, but balanced information in health initiatives for prevention of skin cancer, which use evidence-base strategies, will further be needed in the future to reduce the incidence, morbidity and mortality skin cancer.
- Sunscreens in the United States: current status and future outlook. [Journal Article, Review]
- Adv Exp Med Biol 2014.:464-84.
Incidence rates of nonmelanoma skin cancer and melanoma has been on the rise in the United States for the past 20 years. UV radiation (UVR) exposure remains the most preventable environmental risk factor for these cancers. Aside from sun avoidance, sunscreens remain our best protection. UVR directly damages DNA and cause indirect cellular damage through the creation of reactive oxygen species, the sum of which leads to cutaneous immunosuppression and a tumorigenic milieu. The current generation of sunscreens protect from UVR through two main mechanisms: absorption and deflection. In the US, new Food and Drug Association rules require sunscreen manufacturers to evaluate their products not only on sun protection factor but also on broad spectrum UVA protection by the end of 2013. New labeling requirements will also be instituted. The American Academy of Dermatology and the American Academy of Pediatrics have provided specific recommendations for proper sun protection and sunscreen usage. Plant polyphenols such as those isolated from green tea, pomegranate, and grape seed remain an interesting avenue of research as additives to sunscreens or stand-alone products that appear to modulate the immunosuppressive effects of UVR on the skin. Additionally, although UVR induces endogenous cutaneous production of vitamin D, its damaging effects overshadow this positive benefit, especially in light of the ease of achieving recommended amounts of vitamin D through diet and supplementation.
- Sunscreens. [Journal Article]
- Adv Exp Med Biol 2014.:429-63.
Sunscreens have become since more than 40 years the most popular means of protection against UV radiation (UVR) in Western countries. Organic and inorganic filters with different absorption spectrum exist. They filter or scatter UVR. Protection from UVB is quantified as a minimal erythema dose-based sun protection factor. UVA protection testing is less standardized: Persistent pigment darkening and critical wavelength are currently used methods. Marketing and labeling of sunscreens underlay national regulation which explains major differences between the European and the US sunscreen market. Sunscreens are most performing in sunburn prevention. Broad spectrum UVB and UVA protection and regular application in sufficient amounts are essential for prevention of skin cancers, UV-induced immunosuppression, and skin aging. A significant benefit from regular sunscreen use has not yet been demonstrated for primary prevention of basal cell carcinoma and melanoma. Concerning the prevention of actinic keratoses, squamous cell carcinomas, and skin aging, the effect of sunscreens is significant, but it remains incomplete. Some organic UV filters (PABA derivatives, cinnamates, benzophenones, and octocrylene) have been described to cause photoallergy. Percutaneous absorption and endocrine disrupting activity of small-sized organic and nano-sized inorganic UV filters have been reported. On lesional skin and in pediatric settings, these products should be used with caution. Cutaneous vitamin D synthesis depending on skin-carcinogenic UVB radiation, the potential risk of vitamin D deficiency by sunscreen use has become a major subject of public health debate. Sunscreens indeed impair vitamin D synthesis if they are used in the recommended amount of 2 mg/cm2, but not in lesser thickness below 1.5 mg/cm2 that corresponds better to what users apply in real life conditions. Large molecular last generation UVB-UVA broad spectrum sunscreens have a better benefit-risk ratio than former organic filters: They offer better protection in the UVA band, they are non toxic and non allergenic. A better outcome of sunscreen efficacy especially in primary skin cancer prevention may be achieved with these molecules.
- Ultraviolet-radiation and health: optimal time for sun exposure. [Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't]
- Adv Exp Med Biol 2014.:423-8.
Positive as well as negative health effects of exposure of human skin to UV radiation depend on spectra and fluence rates, both of which being dependent on latitude, time of the day and several other factors. The major positive effects are related to vitamin D photosynthesis and the major negative effect is skin cancer development. The action spectra for these effects are different. This lead us to conclude that for optimal vitamin D synthesis at minimal risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM), the best time for sun exposure is between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. Thus, the common health recommendation (that sun exposure should be avoided between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. and postponed to the afternoon) may be wrong.
- Ultraviolet exposure scenarios: risks of erythema from recommendations on cutaneous vitamin D synthesis. [Journal Article]
- Adv Exp Med Biol 2014.:406-22.
Exposure to sunlight is a major source of vitamin D for most people yet public health advice focuses overwhelmingly on avoiding exposure of unprotected skin because of the risks oferythema and skin cancer. We have calculated the exposure required to gain a number of proposed oral-equivalent doses of vitamin D, as functions of latitude, season, skin type and skin area exposed, together with the associated risk of erythema, expressed in minimum erythema doses. The model results show that the current recommended daily intake of 400 IU is readily achievable through casual sun exposure in the midday lunch hour, with no risk of erythema, for all latitudes some of the year and for all the year at some (low) latitudes. At the higher proposed vitamin D dose of 1000 IU lunchtime sun exposure is still a viable route to the vitamin, but requires the commitment to expose greater areas of skin, or is effective for a shorter period of the year. The highest vitamin D requirement considered was 4000 IU per day. For much of the globe and much of the year, this is not achievable in a lunchtime hour and where it is possible large areas of skin must be exposed to prevent erythema. When the only variable considered was skin type, latitudinal and seasonal limits on adequate vitamin D production were more restrictive for skin type 5 than skin type 2.