Activity report of COST Action TU0905 Working Group 1 – Predicting complex loads on glass structures

2014 ◽  
pp. 11-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Vandebroek ◽  
J Neugebauer ◽  
M Larcher ◽  
V Rajcic ◽  
R Zarnic
Keyword(s):  
Working Group ◽  
Cost Action ◽  
Activity Report ◽  
Group 1

Health and Medical Informatics Competencies: Call to Participate in Updating the IMIA Recommendations

2002 ◽  
Vol 41 (02) ◽  
pp. 86-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Douglas ◽  
Evelyn Hovenga
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Small Group ◽  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Medical Informatics ◽  
Working Group ◽  
International Medical ◽  
Three Dimension ◽  
Virtual University ◽  
Group 1

Summary Objectives: On behalf of the International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA), its Working Group 1 (WG1) addresses health and medical informatics education. Methods: As part of its mission, WG1 developed recommendations for competencies, describing a three-dimension framework and defining learning outcomes. Results: Officially approved by IMIA in 1999, the recommendations have been translated into seven languages. In 2001, WG1 charged a small group with updating the recommendations and consider the work undertaken by others to develop competencies. Additional work underway in support of the recommendations includes a literature review to help extract the fundamental competencies from the recommendations. To ensure the highest quality of input in the updated recommendations, WG1 is issuing a call for participation to the international informatics community. Conclusions: Further work with the competencies will result in updated IMIA guidelines. These are expected to support the creation of a virtual university for health and medical informatics.

Working Group 1: Energy Model and Data Support and Operation

1981 ◽  
pp. 63-78
Author(s):  
B. A. Bayraktar ◽  
E. A. Cherniavsky ◽  
M. A. Laughton ◽  
L. E. Ruff
Keyword(s):  
Working Group ◽  
Energy Model ◽  
Data Support ◽  
Group 1

scholarly journals Features and main problems of treating patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk with statins in real clinical practice (according to the data of the “PRIORITET” research)

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 52-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Yu. Martsevich ◽  
Yu. V. Lukina ◽  
N. P. Kutishenko ◽  
N. A. Dmitrieva ◽  
T. A. Gomova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
Statin Therapy ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Target Level ◽  
High Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
Lipid Pattern ◽  
Very High ◽  
Real Clinical Practice ◽  
Group 1

Aim. To determine the features and main problems of statin therapy, as well as assess the possibility of achieving the target level of lipid pattern in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk (CVR) in real clinical practice.Material and methods. The design of the “PRIORITET” observational program is an open observational study. Patients with high and very high CVR were divided into 3 groups in accordance with the initial data: (1) not taking statins, (2) taking statins, but not reaching the target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level, (3) taking statins with the achievement of the target LDL-C level, which is justified in replacing the statin inside the class — adverse effects (AE), high price, etc. Within 12 weeks 3 visits of patients to hospitals were carried out: baseline visit (B0), visit 1 month after the study initiation (B1) and visit 3 months after the study initiation (B3). The choice of atorvastatin or rosuvastatin was assessed by the doctors.Results. Groups 1, 2 and 3 included 112, 170 and 16 people, respectively. At B0, 145 (48,7%) patients were prescribed atorvastatin, and 153 (51,3%) — rosuvastatin. Three people dropped out of the study to B3, 295 patients completed the program. Lipid pattern of 285 patients were analyzed: 121 (41%) people (101 with very high CVR and 20 with high CVR) achieved the target LDL-C level, the remaining 164 (59%) patients (CVR — 156 and 8, respectively) — no. The most pronounced dynamics of LDL=C level was revealed in group 1, the differences between group 1 and groups 2 and 3 are highly statistically significant (p<0,0001). There were no differences in the frequency of reaching the target LDL-C level between patients taking atorvastatin or rosuvastatin. The target level of LDL-C (p=0,003) in the treatment of rosuvastatin in patients with high CVR was reached significantly more often than in patients with very high CVR. Also 3 non-serious AEs were reported. On average, in 9% of cases, reaching the target level of LDL-С during visits B1 and B3 was wrong interpreted by the attending physicians.Conclusion. The main problems of statin therapy in real clinical practice are the wrong interpretation of reaching the target level of LDL-C, inertness of doctors in titrating of statins doses and achieving the target level of lipid pattern. It may be the cause of reduced efficiency and deterioration of lipid-lowering therapy results in patients with high and very high CVR. The results of the “PRIORITET” study demonstrated the possibility of improving the practice of statins use and its accordance with clinical guidelines.Skibitsky V. V. on behalf of the working group of the “PRIORITET” researchWorking Group of the “PRIORITET” study: Voronina V. P. (Moscow), Zelenova T. I. (Moscow), Sladkova T.A. (Moscow), Alekseeva A. I. (Tula), Barabanova T. Yu. (Tula), Zotova A. S. (Tula), Kolomeitseva T. M. (Tula), Prikhod’ko T. N. (Tula), Pazelt E. A. (Nizhny Novgorod), Khramushev N. Yu. (Nizhny Novgorod), Skibitsky A. V. (Krasnodar), Alekseeva V. V. (Saratov), Lazareva E. V. (Saratov).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document