Search Results
Edit Save
768 results
In Reply The letter from Grandjean et al agrees with our Viewpoint that fish eaten during pregnancy benefits the developing brain but disagrees that consumption beyond what most people eat is necessary to cause harm from mercury. Consumption advice from the US Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency in 2017 omitted any mention of this important benefit. It only advised that fish consumption benefits growth and development generally, as with other high-protein foods. The takeaway was that benefits from fish are obtainable from other foods without mercury-based consumption limitations that the 2017 advice recommends for fish. We question whether this advice can motivate fish consumption during pregnancy. Most pregnant.
To the Editor We read with interest the recent work by Salö et al, reporting a low odds ratio of complicated appendicitis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.59) in a subgroup of patients with documented IgE-mediated allergy. However, the conclusion of lower risk of complicated appendicitis in allergic children is not necessarily valid. The prevalence of allergy in the population at risk of appendicitis in the study was not presented, and therefore, the absolute risk of complicated appendicitis could be the same as in the nonallergic group, provided that the allergic children had an increased risk of uncomplicated appendicitis. If the proportion of allergic to nonallergic children with appendicitis is as reported in the study, the ab.
In Reply We thank Dahlberg and Everhov for their implicit validation of the representativeness of our study cohort and for advertising the fact that IgE-mediated allergy was associated with a reduced odds of complicated appendicitis. In our center, children with IgE-mediated allergy had 3 times lower risk of complicated appendicitis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.59), after adjustment for age, sex, primary health contacts, seasonal antigenic exposure, allergy medications, and duration of symptoms. We appraised unmeasured confounding but not the risk of selection bias, and we therefore welcome the endorsement offered by Dahlberg and Everhov. The rate of our primary exposure was on par with the mean allergy prevalence in their uni.
In the Original Investigation titled “Association of Long-term Child Growth and Developmental Outcomes With Metformin vs Insulin Treatment for Gestational Diabetes,” published online December 3, 2018, there were errors in the Abstract and Table 1. The number of mothers treated with metformin was incorrect in the second sentence of the Results section of the Abstract. It should have been 576 instead of 756 so that the sentence reads “A large proportion of mothers who were treated with insulin identified as New Zealand European (867 [44.9%]) while 576 mothers who were treated with metformin (28.9%) identified as New Zealand European.” Additionally, in Table 1, there should be a closed parenthesis in the final column of row 18, so that the cel.
To the Editor We read with interest the results of the study of the effect of prenatal residential lead-hazard intervention on residential dust lead loadings, child blood lead concentrations (BLCs), and neurobehavioral outcomes. Despite the small number of African American participants, the population most likely to be affected by lead exposure (45 randomized to intervention and 44 randomized to control condition), the effect of the intervention in this small group was large enough that at ages 1 and 2 years, when lead exposure is most likely to result in elevated BLCs and adverse effects, striking reductions in geometric mean BLCs (33.3% and 37.5% at 1 and 2 years;. P. = .03 and. P. = .004, respectively) were associated with the intervention.

Therapeutic Areas

Clinical Trials and Phases

Business Issues

Companies - Public

Companies - Venture Funded

Financial Results

Global Markets

Global Risk Factors

Government Agencies

Job Titles

Legal and Regulatory

Cell Receptors


Diagnostics and Therapeutics


Drugs - Brand Names

Drugs - Generic



Health Care

Health and Wellness

Human Anatomy

Mechanisms of Action

Medical Devices



Strategic Scenarios



On this page, you see the results of the search you have run.  You may also view the following:

  •  Click on this drop-down menu on the right hand side of the page, to choose between the machine learning-produced Insights Reports, or the listing of concepts extracted from the results, in chart or list format. 

  •  View the number of search results returned for the search in each of your collections, and click on any of those numbers to view the entire listing of results from the chosen collection.

  •  Use the search adjustment drop-downs to change the scope, sorting, and presentation of your results.

  •  Show or hide the record’s caption (content description).

  •  Show actions that can be made with the search result record.

  •  Click on the Save button after running your search, to save it so that its results will be updated each time relevant new content is added to the designated collection. You may choose to be notified via search alerts.

Click here for more info on Search Results

Click here for more info on Machine Learning applications