1,721,038 research outputs found

    Graves disease: latest understanding of pathogenesis and treatment options

    Full text link
    Graves disease is the most common cause of hyperthyroidism in iodine-sufficient areas. The main responsible mechanism is related to autoantibodies that bind and activate the thyrotropin receptor (TSHR). Although Graves hyperthyroidism is relatively common, no causal treatment options are available. Established treatment modalities are antithyroid drugs, which reduce thyroid hormone synthesis, radioactive iodine and surgery. However, emerging drugs that target the main autoantigen (monoclonal antibodies, small molecules, peptides) or block the immune pathway have been recently tested in clinical trials. Graves disease can involve the thyroid exclusively or it can be associated with extrathyroidal manifestations, among which Graves orbitopathy is the most common. The presence of Graves orbitopathy can change the management of the disease. An established treatment for moderate-to-severe Graves orbitopathy is intravenous glucocorticoids. However, recent advances in understanding the pathogenesis of Graves orbitopathy have allowed the development of new target-based therapies by blocking pro-inflammatory cytokine receptors, lymphocytic infiltration or the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF1R), with several clinical trials providing promising results. This article reviews the new discoveries in the pathogenesis of Graves hyperthyroidism and Graves orbitopathy that offer several important tools in disease management

    The surgical treatment of mobile valgus flat foot in children.

    No full text
    The indications for surgical intervention in the treatment of mobile valgus flat foot in children are based on the age of the patient and the severity of the lesion. This depends on an accurate pre-operative assessment based on many clinical and radiographic signs and is the only way of deciding when orthotic treatment and physiokinesotherapy should be replaced by surgery

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore