PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “method comparison”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 307 records · Page 17Linked to original sources
PubMed1993

[Detection of HPV infection in CIN and invasive cancers by in situ hybridization method--comparison with histopathology].

The causal association of human papilloma virus (HPV) with cervical cancer has been supported by multiple lines of evidence. Therefore, in the case of dysplasia, the presence of HPV-DNA should be detected and its subtypes identified. This is important in the determination of the prognosis for cervical disease. We reported a study in which the localization and types of HPV in cervical diseases was identified by in situ hybridization using biotin-labelled DNA probes. Seven types (3 basic forms) of HPV were used as DNA probes. HPV types used were following: 6/11, 16/18, 31/33/35. In this study, we introduced 7 new types (3 forms) of probes for a total of 14 types (6 forms). The new probes introduced were 42/43/45, 45/56, 51/52. Using these probes, the rate of detection HPV according to types was examined. In addition, localization of HPV infection and its relationship with histopathological findings of cervical disease were evaluated. 1) Types 6/11 and 45/56 were found in the lesions with less important histological findings (CIN I). Types 16/18, 31/33/35, 51/52 were found in the all lesions. Type 42/43/44 were not detected in this study. 2) The addition of 7 new types (3 new forms) of probes resulted in a 17% increase (16 cases) in the rate of detection of HPV compared to our previous study. 3) Localization and distribution pattern of the HPV is not, as has been reported so far, dependent on HPV type but rather on the histological characteristics, such as the degree of dysplasia.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1996

Caval interruption methods: comparison of options.

The Stainless Steel and Titanium Greenfield filters, the Venatech filter, and the Bird's nest filter are most commonly used in the United States. A comparison of contemporary experience with these filters along with that of Simon-Nitinol filter is shown in Table 1. The published experience with each device is minimal compared with actual clinical use. The published reports available do not often examine experience with a view toward unbiased and accurate comparison of results. Each filter has an acceptably low rate of recurrent PE, but each has experienced the range of complications associated with vena caval filters or partitions. The reviewed case series are too small and the complication rates too similar for any of the newer designs to claim unequivocal superiority. Except for the Stainless Steel Greenfield filter, comparison is further complicated by the lack of standardized, quantitative follow-up of patients over a period long enough for possible extremity venous complications to be observed. Each of the currently available filters has at least one specific attribute that may recommend it for a particular situation. Detailed and comparable examination of IVC filtration is becoming more important as the indication for and use of these devices increase. Clearly, the search for the perfect device to prevent PE should continue.90 Any filtration device plays only a small role in the overall management of the patient with thromboembolic disease. It is incumbent upon the physician who treats this patient to assume the responsibility for the diagnosis of and long-term follow-up of the underlying disorder. Considerable technical ingenuity and continued evolution of materials and design have propelled the development and number of available vena cava filters for clinical use. Without objective clinical data, many interventional radiologists and surgeons base their filter selection on ease of insertion and device cost. Variable data on safety and effectiveness demand that physicians match the best filter to each patient's particular situation and anatomy. The primary objective of vena cava filtration is to provide a safe and effective device for permanent implantation. If this objective is not kept in sight, quality of care in the management of deep venous thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolus will be lost.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗