This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
AI-guided point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) can accurately detect tuberculosis (TB), according to research presented April 14 at the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) conference in Vienna, Austria. In her presentation, Vronique Suttels, PhD, from Lausanne University Hospital in Switzerland discussed her teams findings, showing that AI POCUS interpretation fulfills requirements by the World Health Organization (WHO) for a nonsputum TB triage test.
This study examined the impact of IVC stent placement across the renal veins on renal function and renal vein patency. The study cohort consisted of 48 patients who underwent IVC stent placement across the renal veins (RV+ group) and 96 patients who underwent IVC stent placement sparing the renal veins (RV- group). Changes in eGFR (RV+ vs RV-, mL/min/1.73 m2) at 1-7 days (-0.8 vs. -0.7, P = 0.98), 8-30 days (1.9 vs. 0, P = 0.66), 31-180 days (0.3 vs. -2.1, P = 0.55), and beyond 180 days (5.8 vs.
Amidst rising cancer prevalence and soaring costs, new cancer technologies and innovations are emerging to support the early detection, treatment, and surveillance of cancer. Read this guide to understand how to evaluate these solutions for your employees and members – and to learn more about the current state of coverage, clinical and cost effectiveness, and impact on quality and outcomes.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000 users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
226 
Let's personalize your content