Student Edition | EndNote

Looking for:

Endnote x7 price free

Click here to Download


Clinicians should not define microhematuria by positive dipstick testing alone. A positive urine dipstick test trace blood or greater should prompt formal microscopic evaluation of the urine. In patients with microhematuria, clinicians should perform a history and physical examination to assess risk factors for genitourinary malignancy, medical renal disease, gynecologic and non-malignant genitourinary causes of microhematuria.

Clinical Principle. Clinicians should perform the same evaluation of patients with microhematuria who are taking antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants regardless of the type or level of therapy as patients not on these agents. In patients with findings suggestive of a gynecologic or non-malignant urologic etiology, clinicians should evaluate the patients with appropriate physical examination techniques and tests to identify such an etiology.

In patients diagnosed with gynecologic or non-malignant genitourinary sources of microhematuria, clinicians should repeat urinalysis following resolution of the gynecologic or non-malignant genitourinary cause. If microhematuria persists or the etiology cannot be identified, clinicians should perform risk-based urologic evaluation. In patients with hematuria attributed to a urinary tract infection, clinicians should obtain a urinalysis with microscopic evaluation following treatment to ensure resolution of the hematuria.

Clinicians should refer patients with microhematuria for nephrologic evaluation if medical renal disease is suspected. However, risk-based urologic evaluation should still be performed. Following initial evaluation, clinicians should categorize patients presenting with microhematuria as low-, intermediate-, or high-risk for genitourinary malignancy based on the accompanying tables Tables 3 and 4.

In low-risk patients with microhematuria, clinicians should engage patients in shared decision-making to decide between repeating urinalysis within six months or proceeding with cystoscopy and renal ultrasound.

Low-risk patients who initially elected not to undergo cystoscopy or upper tract imaging and who are found to have microhematuria on repeat urine testing should be reclassified as intermediate- or high-risk.

In such patients, clinicians should perform cystoscopy and upper tract imaging in accordance with recommendations for these risk strata Strong Recommendation; Evidence Level: Grade C. Clinicians should perform cystoscopy and renal ultrasound in patients with microhematuria categorized as intermediate-risk for malignancy. Clinicians should perform cystoscopy and axial upper tract imaging in patients with microhematuria categorized as high-risk for malignancy.

Clinicians should perform white light cystoscopy in patients undergoing evaluation of the bladder for microhematuria. In patients with persistent or recurrent microhematuria previously evaluated with renal ultrasound, clinicians may perform additional imaging of the urinary tract.

In patients with microhematuria who have a family history of renal cell carcinoma or a known genetic renal tumor syndrome, clinicians should perform upper tract imaging regardless of risk category. Expert Opinion. Clinicians should not use urine cytology or urine-based tumor markers in the initial evaluation of patients with microhematuria.

Clinicians may obtain urine cytology for patients with persistent microhematuria after a negative workup who have irritative voiding symptoms or risk factors for carcinoma in situ. In patients with a negative hematuria evaluation, clinicians may obtain a repeat urinalysis within 12 months. For patients with a prior negative hematuria evaluation and subsequent negative urinalysis, clinicians may discontinue further evaluation for microhematuria.

For patients with a prior negative hematuria evaluation who have persistent or recurrent microhematuria at the time of repeat urinalysis, clinicians should engage in shared decision-making regarding need for additional evaluation. For patients with a prior negative hematuria evaluation who develop gross hematuria, significant increase in degree of microhematuria, or new urologic symptoms, clinicians should initiate further evaluation.

Urologic etiologies for hematuria include malignancy, infection, inflammation, calculus disease, benign prostatic hyperplasia BPH , and congenital or acquired anatomic abnormalities.

When considering the risk of malignancy in patients with hematuria, a recent prospective observational study of over 3, patients referred for evaluation of hematuria noted a While most experts agree that patients with GH should be evaluated with cystoscopy, upper tract imaging and urinary cytology, significant variability exists across current guidelines and consensus statements regarding MH, particularly the definition of MH, criteria for evaluation, as well as the appropriate components of the evaluation, including the optimal imaging modality.

Indeed, the principal goal of the Guideline was to minimize the likelihood of missing a malignancy diagnosis. At the same time, practice-pattern assessments have demonstrated significant inconsistencies in the evaluation of patients presenting with hematuria.

Women with hematuria have been especially prone to delays in evaluation, often due to practitioners ascribing hematuria to a urinary tract infection UTI or gynecologic source, resulting in inadequate evaluation and delay in cancer diagnosis. As such, the need exists to develop and disseminate clear guideline recommendations for evaluation of hematuria that limit the unnecessary risks and costs associated with the over-evaluation of patients who are at low risk for malignancy, while at the same time addressing the delays in diagnosis of important urologic conditions caused by widespread under-evaluation and variations in care.

In the process, it is recognized that tailoring the intensity of evaluation to patient risk, as opposed to recommending intensive evaluation for every patient irrespective of harms and costs, will inevitably introduce the potential for some missed cancers.

Nonetheless, the proposed approach seeks to optimize the balance of detection and risk at both the patient and health system level. In addition, the Panel aims to put forth an actionable set of recommendations that will facilitate standardization in order to minimize unnecessary variations and the risk of under-evaluation and delayed diagnosis of important urologic conditions. The recommendations herein, based on analysis of the best available evidence, represent a patient-centered approach by maximizing the opportunities to diagnose important urologic conditions in a timely fashion, while avoiding unnecessary evaluations in low-risk patients.

The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. Determination of the guideline scope and review of the final systematic review to inform guideline statements was conducted in conjunction with the MH Panel. Funding of the Panel was provided by the AUA; panel members received no remuneration for their work.

A systematic review was conducted to inform on appropriate diagnosis, evaluation, and follow-up in patients with suspected and confirmed MH. The methodologist, in consultation with the expert panel, developed criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies based on the Key Questions and the populations, interventions, comparators, and outcomes PICO of interest.

Based on a low volume of studies identified enrolling solely MH patients, studies that enrolled a combination MH and GH population were included in the evidence base. Studies enrolling the two populations were described separately in text and tables. Control articles, which were deemed important and relevant by the Panel, were compared with the draft literature search strategy output, and the final strategy was updated as necessary to capture all control articles.

All hits from the OVID literature search were input into reference management software EndNote X7 , where duplicate citations were removed. Abstracts were reviewed by the methodologist to determine if the study addressed the Key Questions and if the study met study design inclusion criteria.

For all research questions, randomized controlled trials RCTs , observational studies, and case-control studies were considered for inclusion in the evidence base. Studies had to enroll at least 30 patients per study arm. Case series, letters, editorials, in vitro studies, studies conducted in animal models, and studies not published in English were excluded from the evidence base. Full-text review was conducted on studies that passed the abstract screening phase.

Studies were compared to the predetermined PICO as outlined below. The dual-review trained the methodologist, who then completed full-time review of the remaining studies. A second search was conducted to update the report to include studies published up to December Data were extracted from all studies that passed full-text review by the methodologist. All extracted data were audited by an independent auditor. Quality assessment for all retained studies was conducted.

Using this method, studies deemed to be of low quality would not be excluded from the systematic review, but would be retained, and their methodological strengths and weaknesses discussed where relevant.

To define an overall study quality rating for each included study, risk of bias as determined by validated study-type specific tools, was paired with additional important quality features. Additional important quality features, such as study design, comparison type, power of statistical analysis, and sources of funding were extracted for each study.

GRADE defines a body of evidence in relation to how confident guideline developers can be that the estimate of effects as reported by that body of evidence is correct. Evidence is categorized as high, moderate, low, and very low; and assessment is based on the aggregate risk of bias for the evidence base plus limitations introduced as a consequence of inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias across the studies.

Upgrading of evidence is possible if the body of evidence indicates a large effect or if confounding would suggest either spurious effects or would reduce the demonstrated effect. One of the main objectives for the guideline is to establish a risk model to stratify patients based on their risk for underlying urologic malignancy. To this end, pooling of data was conducted in three areas using RevMan.

For studies that reported raw data on patient factors and their association with malignant diagnosis, unadjusted odds ratios were calculated and pooled using a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel method. Finally, prevalence of both malignant and benign diagnoses in relation to the type of hematuria work-up received by patients were calculated and pooled using a random-effects inverse-variance method.

For all other areas, pooling was determined to be inappropriate based on heterogeneity of population, reference standard, or reported outcomes. The AUA employs a three-tiered strength of evidence system to underpin evidence-based guideline statements. Table 1.

The AUA categorizes body of evidence strength as Grade A well-conducted and highly-generalizable RCTs or exceptionally strong observational studies with consistent findings , Grade B RCTs with some weaknesses of procedure or generalizability or moderately strong observational studies with consistent findings , or Grade C RCTs with serious deficiencies of procedure or generalizability or extremely small sample sizes or observational studies that are inconsistent, have small sample sizes, or have other problems that potentially confound interpretation of data.

By definition, Grade A evidence is evidence about which the Panel has a high level of certainty, Grade B evidence is evidence about which the Panel has a moderate level of certainty, and Grade C evidence is evidence about which the Panel has a low level of certainty. All three statement types may be supported by any body of evidence strength grade. Body of evidence strength Grade A in support of a Strong or Moderate Recommendation indicates that the statement can be applied to most patients in most circumstances and that future research is unlikely to change confidence.

Body of evidence strength Grade B in support of a Strong or Moderate Recommendation indicates that the statement can be applied to most patients in most circumstances but that better evidence could change confidence. Body of evidence strength Grade C in support of a Strong or Moderate Recommendation indicates that the statement can be applied to most patients in most circumstances but that better evidence is likely to change confidence.

Conditional Recommendations also can be supported by any evidence strength. Where gaps in the evidence existed, the Panel provides guidance in the form of Clinical Principles or Expert Opinions with consensus achieved using a modified Delphi technique if differences of opinion emerged. Expert Opinion refers to a statement, achieved by consensus of the Panel, that is based on members’ clinical training, experience, knowledge, and judgment for which there may or may not be evidence.

An integral part of the guideline development process at the AUA is external peer review. The AUA conducted a thorough peer review process to ensure that the document was reviewed by experts in the diagnosis, evaluation, and follow-up of MH.

Additionally, a call for reviewers was placed on the AUA website from December , to allow any additional interested parties to request a copy of the document for review. The draft guideline document was distributed to peer reviewers. All peer review comments were blinded and sent to the Panel for review. In total, 66 reviewers provided comments, including 51 external reviewers. At the end of the peer review process, a total of comments were received. Following comment discussion, the Panel revised the draft as needed.

As such, microscopic quantification remains the referent standard for defining hematuria. In a recent study evaluating the correlation between degree of MH and malignancy among a group of over 46, patients, Matulewicz et al. In particular, with the risk stratified evaluation approach outlined below, the Panel felt it was necessary to be inclusive at this definition stage whilst subsequent evaluation would be modulated by individual patient risk.

Meanwhile, the Panel noted limited new data since the previous iteration of the AUA Guideline regarding the role of single versus multiple UAs as part of the diagnostic evaluation.

For most initial evaluations, a random midstream clean-catch collection is sufficient. Patients should be instructed to discard the initial 10 mL of voided urine into the toilet in order to collect the midstream void. If a significant number of squamous cells are present in the sample, then contamination is possible and a repeat specimen collection or catheterization should be considered.

Providing basic instructions to patients on proper sample collection, verbally, in writing, or on posted signs, could minimize contaminated or faulty samples. Male patients: Midstream voided specimens are adequate unless the patient is unable to void. The specimen can be collected into the sterile specimen cup after gently cleaning the urethral meatus with a sterilization towelette.

In uncircumcised men, it is important to retract the foreskin to avoid contamination. Female patients: A voided midstream specimen should be the primary method unless there are circumstances such as known problems with repeated specimen contamination or a history of difficulty voiding.

The patient should be instructed to spread the labia adequately to allow for cleansing of the urethral meatus with a sterilization towelette and to avoid introital contamination. In some patients, catheterization may be necessary in order to obtain an appropriate specimen. This subgroup includes obese female patients and patients with a non-intact urinary tract, a Foley catheter, a suprapubic catheter, or who use intermittent catheterization.

Women with concurrent menstruation should be reevaluated after its cessation or should undergo catheterization to determine if the blood is in fact present in the urine or is only noted as a result of vaginal contamination.

Specimen: The specimen container should be labeled per institutional protocol and analyzed within standard laboratory regulations. Method of collection, date, and time should be included in the labeling.

Analytic techniques vary, with some now using flow cytometry rather than microscopy. For more detail, one can consult with the local laboratory director. Urine specimens collected immediately after prolonged recumbency first void in morning or the first voiding after vigorous physical or sexual activity should not be examined to assess for microhematuria.

If this is not the case but the clinician is suspicious that the findings could reflect true MH, then repeat microscopic testing may be reasonable after assessing patient risk and preference. Urine dipstick testing detects the peroxidase activity of hemoglobin using benzidine, but does not correlate perfectly with microscopic evaluation. For example, myoglobinuria, dehydration, exercise, menstrual blood, or povidone-iodine betadine can produce false-positive dipstick results.

In a series of female patients with a positive dipstick, Bradley et al. At the same time, the degree of hematuria on dipstick has been associated with the degree of hematuria on a UA, as well as the subsequent likelihood of identifying bladder cancer. In reviewing these data, the Panel concluded that a positive urine dipstick test trace blood or greater should prompt UA with microscopic evaluation, but should not be used alone to diagnose MH.

A detailed history and physical examination should be performed in patients who are confirmed to have MH as defined in Statement 1. Important aspects of the history should include age, sex, history of GH, irritative urinary symptoms, and overall health status. Physical examination should include measurement of blood pressure and a genitourinary examination as dictated by the clinical history. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category “Performance”. It does not store any personal data.

Functional Functional. Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features. Performance Performance. Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

Analytics Analytics. Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

Advertisement Advertisement. Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. Get Logical Drives Information. Remote Shutdown or Reboot with Telnet and C. NET 1. Task Pattern meets the Command Pattern 16 Sep Communicating across a network can be time consuming manifesting itself as an unresponsive user interface.

This article tries to solve the problem. A simple in-process semaphore using C. Understanding Threading in. Threading out tasks in a C. Using Win32 Semaphores in C. The key to multi-threaded Windows Forms UI interaction. Using events for thread synchronization. This article provides an easy method to lookup a U. XTract: A tool for excerpting relevant text. WallRotate – A wallpaper changer in VC.

ResxWriter: Generating. Reflection Explorer 11 Jul Add Item wizard 17 Feb A High-Precision Stopwatch for C. DIffer: a reusable C diffing utility and class library. Multi-threaded file download manager. Detecting Application Idleness. Clipboard Image Archiver. Unicode compliant multilingual word breaker. JotNotes – post-it notes for your computer. Yet Another Class Generator. Comparison and synchronization tool using C.

ActiveSync File Filter in C. Wildcard Manipulation for Text. Versioner: An AssemblyInfo version incrementer. Bookmark merger for Mozilla Firefox. Proper Threading in Winforms. Windows Forms User Settings in C. A curtain hiding screen updates, and blending old and new content with a nice fade effect.

Instantly Changing Language in the Form. Changing the background color of cells in a DataGrid. Sticky Windows – How to make your top-level forms to stick one to the other or to the screen. The Favalias Application 1 Oct Favalias application enables you to manage your favorites web sites in an XML file and to launch your favorites application using aliases.

You can also make your own addins in any. NET language to call your own code. Form appearance effect and notification window. NET Form. How to do Application Initialization while showing a SplashScreen. This isn’t an example on how to create a splash screen for your app. This article explains a clean way to encapsulate splash screen functionality into an inherited ApplicationContext class.

This article also shows in detail what happens behind the scenes when a WinForm app starts. Save valuable screen space by hiding seldom used or insignificant controls on a WinForm. Runtime resizable controls! OSD window with animation effect, in C 25 May Extending the save file dialog class in. Pre-beginner’s guide to using a timer. Using configuration classes and simple implementation, this library allows your applications a flexible method of reporting errors that happen.

Access Parent Statusbar from a child. Non-transparent controls on a semi-transparent window. Gradient Forms – The Easy Way. Using a delegate to pass data between two forms. Not Just Another Form Fader. Floating, collapsible transparent window in C. Using inheritance to create Windows Forms dialogs. Cute Splash Windows and About Boxes using.

Reporting in Windows. Passing an Object between Two. NET Windows Forms. Creating Custom Shaped Windows Forms in. Multi-monitor programming in C 21 Mar Form and Control Position and Size Utility. XmlSerializer and ‘not expected’ Inherited Types 25 Oct A very simple XSLT test utility. Enumerate over XML data in a foreach loop. Demonstrates how to use C.

XML forking in. NET Framework 1. Load and save objects to XML using serialization. Generate Classes From Declarative Code. XPath – Elements and Attributes. Extract RSS feeds from Web pages. XML sub-tree processing in.

AidaNet : Network resources inventory 8 Mar Vector Data Language Specification v1. Wrap the. This lightweight base class trivializes Xml Serialization and eliminates duplication in projects with multiple serializable classes. A Docking control that can be dragged and resized by the user.

A Magical Edit Menu Manager. Extended Interface for Status Message. MenuItem Extender – add images and font support to your menu. Almost Office – Getting rid of the margin in MenuItems. Improvement of the. NET Menu Style class. Office ToolStrip Renderer. Extended Interface for Toolbars.

Magic MenuControl – VS. NET Style. Unedited Reader Contributions. ToolStrip Custom Renderers. ButtonMenu – a. AutoSig: A browser helper object that automatically adds a different signature when you post a message to a CP forum.

Calculating Christian Holidays. Convert date from Hijri Calendar to Gregorian Calendar and vise versa. Custom ShortDate type struct: IComparable. Automating web browsing. Profiting from the WebForm designer generated code. To Remove Decimal From Price. A complete C Screensaver that does double-buffering on multiple monitor systems! Andrew’s CodeProject Screen Saver. Christian and James’ Code Project Screensaver. A word-wise HTML text compare and merge engine.

Conditional Replacement. Adding line numbers to text. Processing Command Line Arguments. Bulk String Comparison – Time Involved. LightBox Web Gallery Generator. Globalization of Windows Application in 20 Minutes using C. How to get Website Thumbnail in a C application without creating a forms. Database Schema Comparison Utility. Integrate Windows Desktop Search 2. Testing file access rights in. An application to create interesting and fully customizable web photo gallery.

Skinned form playing Audio and OpenGL altogether. Automatic Sql server Backup Utility using sqlserveragent. An easy way to populate instances using generics. Counting PDF Pages using regular expressions. A Really Vain “How are my articles doing” web spider. Csharp Image Selection Form. Simple Message Queue Manager. Writing custom attributes in C. Inter-Process Communication in. Work Queue based multi-threading. Allows an application to queue work that is performed concurrently to the main thread while maintaining exception processing.

Finite State Machine and Multithreading using. NET multi-threading and communication between threads. Managing shared resource access in. NET multi-threading. Multithreading Concepts in C. Converting single threaded C class to multithreaded one. Launching a process and displaying its standard output. Changing the default limit of 25 threads of ThreadPool class. Thread variables and the. NET thread pool. Creating your own thread pool in. Wait for threads in a ThreadPool object to complete.

Cancellable Thread Pool. An abstraction layer for applications to intercept access between the application and threadpool, to better manage processing upon it. Don’t waste time! Synchronize your ThreadPool. Generic InvocationHelper. A generic class for providing thread-safe invocation of delegates. Can be used for but not limited to updating GUI elements from another thread.

Threading paradigms available under the. ThreadQueue — A queue for threads that allows asynchronous execution and a time limit. PriorityLock – Release locks by priority. Retrieved 5 February Archived from the original PDF on PC Mag. Ziff Davis, Inc.

ISSN Astrophysics and Space Science Library. ISBN EndNote from Niles and Associates is a commercial personal DBMS tool explicitly customized for storing and retrieving scientific bibliographical records.

Accessed Archived from the original on March 4, Retrieved February 19, Archived from the original on July 20, Archived from the original on July 2, Archived from the original on April 28, Archived from the original on July 30, Archived from the original on July 19, Archived from the original on April 16, Archived from the original PDF on March 19, Archived from the original on May 4, ISI ResearchSoft.

Computers in Libraries.


Endnote x7 price free

Listed in category:.


Endnote x7 price free. Multi User license EndNote X7.7 & EndNote X8 news

EndNote is a reference manager that helps you save time formatting citations, so you can focus on your research. Automatically build your bibliography using the library of 7,+ reference types or your own customized style. Ensure your bibliography is accurate with.