PubMed · 3975818
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
P C Bucy. 1985. Neurosurgical residency programs.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-3019(85)90103-x
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) assesses kidney function. GFR is measured by renal clearance techniques; inulin clearance is the gold standard but is not easily measured. Thus, other methods to determine GFR have been utilized. Endogenous creatinine clearance (CrCl) is the most widely used, but creatinine secretion falsely elevates GFR. Cimetidine inhibits creatinine secretion, such that CrCl equals GFR, provided there are no difficulties with bladder emptying. Estimation of GFR from serum creatinine (e.g. Schwartz formula) is useful clinically; however, such formulae have not been updated for enzymatic creatinine autoanalyzers. Cystatin C, a small protein, is produced at a relatively constant rate and is reabsorbed in the proximal tubule. Cystatin C may be more sensitive than creatinine in detecting a reduction in GFR, but further studies are needed to prove this. Single injection (plasma) clearance techniques are the most precise measures of GFR. Iohexol is an exogenous marker that is comparable to inulin and (51)Cr-EDTA and can be measured by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Our pilot and the Chronic Kidney Disease in Children (CKiD) North American studies show that iohexol can accurately measure GFR using a four-point plasma disappearance curve national studies show that iohexol can accurately measure GFR using a four-point plasma disappearance curve (10, 30, 120, and 300 min) or, in most cases, a two-point disappearance time (120 and 300 min).
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
INTRODUCTION: Receiving negative performance feedback can elicit negative emotional reactions which can interfere with feedback acceptance and use. This study investigated emotional responses of family physicians' participating in a multi-source feedback (MSF) program, sources of these emotions, and their influence upon feedback acceptance and use. METHODS: The authors interviewed 28 volunteer family physician participants in a pilot study of MSF, purposefully recruited to represent the range of scores. The study was conducted in 2003-2004 at Dalhousie University. RESULTS: Participants' emotional reactions to feedback appeared to be elicited in response to an internal comparison of their feedback with self-perceptions of performance. Those agreeing with their feedback; i.e., perceiving it as generally consistent with or higher than self-perceptions responded positively, while those disagreeing with their feedback; i.e., seeing it as generally inconsistent with or lower than self-perceptions, generally responded with distress. For the latter group, these feelings were often strong and long-lasting. Some eventually accepted their feedback and used it for change following a long period of reflection. Others did not and described an equally long reflective period but one which focused on and questioned MSF procedures rather than addressed feedback use. Participants suggested providing facilitated reflection on feedback to enhance assimilation of troubling emotions and interpretation and use of feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Negative feedback can evoke negative feelings and interfere with its acceptance. To overcome this, helpful interventions may include raising awareness of the influence of emotions, assisting recipients to focus their feedback on performance tasks, and providing facilitated reflection on feedback.