Categories
Cardiovascular
Diagnostics
Endocrinology
Health Insurance
Medical Devices
Mental Health
Nutrition
Oncology
Public Health
Sexual Health
Popular Articles

Many People Can Cope With Knowing They Have Alzheimer's Risk
Many people who discover that they have inherited a higher risk of developing Alzheimer"s can cope with the news, especially if they receive the
generic viagra online
Supreme Court Nominees Should Disclose Views On Constitutional Issues, USA Today Opinion Piece States
One thing that "has been conspicuously absent" from the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is "substance," Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, writes in a USA Today opinion piece. According to Turley, "The vast majority of questions and answers remained on a shallow and predictable level where Sotomayor did little more than describe current doctrines and case law -- avoiding disclosures of her own views." He continues, "What is most striking is how Sotomayor"s statements were virtually identical to both her conservative and liberal predecessors," including her comments that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are "the precedent of the court."Turley writes, "The content-light character in these hearings is largely the product of the "Ginsburg rule" -- named after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who refused to answer questions in her 1993 confirmation hearing about any case or matter upon which she might later vote." According to Turley, "Later nominees for both parties have relied on the Ginsburg rule to turn the hearings into prolonged photo-ops for senators, who largely ask wafer-thin questions to solicit largely scripted answers." The rule "allows nominees to get by with meaningless sound bites that promise to respect precedent, the Framers [of the Constitution] and collegiality in general," he adds. Furthermore, it "tells the public nothing about a nominee"s philosophy or purpose before giving her life tenure on the world"s most powerful court," Turley writes.According to Turley, there is a "simple solution to returning substance to the confirmation process: End the Ginsburg rule by insisting that nominees answer questions about their specific views on constitutional rights." Although "the current system works well for presidents, nominees and senators," it "does little for the public or the system of justice," he writes (Turley, USA Today, 7/16).
News of the day
Camera-Phone Uses Blood, Saliva Samples To Diagnose Disease
Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, have developed a "prototype camera-phone mounted with a microscope" that can "magnify and photograph blood or saliva samples" for diagnosing diseases, the Canadian Press/Google.com reports. A report on the device was published on Wednesday in the journal PLoS One. The prototype, called CellScope, would enable "disease screening and diagnosis in the field where specialized clinical microscopy laboratories aren"t available, including in underdeveloped countries," according to the news service (Ubelacker, 7/21).
Mental Health

Monitoring Bone Density In Older Women Is Unnecessary And Potentially Misleading

Monitoring bone mineral density in postmenopausal women taking osteoporosis drugs (bisphosphonates) is unnecessary and potentially misleading, concludes a study published on bmj.com. Osteoporosis is a major public health problem, particularly in older women because bone density falls after the menopause as oestrogen levels dwindle. Low bone mineral density is an important risk factor for fractures. Some guidelines recommend regular monitoring of bone mineral density in postmenopausal women, but it is costly and some experts question whether it is able to show how a patient is responding to treatment. So researchers based in Australia and the USA assessed the need for monitoring by estimating how much the effects of the drug alendronate (a widely used bisphosphonate) differ between individuals. They analysed data from the Fracture Intervention Trial (FIT), a large randomised trial that compared the effects of alendronate with placebo in over 6,000 postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density. Bone density of the hip and spine was measured at the start of the study and then again one, two and three years later. After three years of therapy, almost all (97.5%) women treated with alendronate showed at least a modest increase in hip bone mineral density. Moreover, this treatment effect did not vary substantially between individuals. This, say the authors, makes monitoring individuals" response to treatment unnecessary. Another reason often given for monitoring is to improve adherence to treatment. However, most problems occur within three months of starting treatment - much earlier than the first measurement at one year, explain the authors. Evidence also shows that discussing problems with a healthcare professional a few months after starting treatment improves adherence. Monitoring bone mineral density in postmenopausal women in the first three years after starting treatment with a bisphosphonate is unnecessary and, because of the potential to mislead, is best avoided, they conclude. These findings strengthen the case against routine monitoring of bone mineral density during the first few years of treatment, writes Juliet Compston, Professor of Bone Medicine at the University of Cambridge, in an accompanying editorial. The clear implication for clinical practice is that patients may be given inappropriate advice if changes in bone mineral density are used to monitor treatment. She concludes: "Routine monitoring of bone mineral density during the first few years of antiresorptive treatment cannot be justified because it may mislead patients, lead to inappropriate management decisions, and waste scarce healthcare res." Emma Dickinson BMJ-British Medical Journal


Add your comment:
Name:
Site address: http://
Your message:
Enter today\\\\'s date, 2 digits
(spam protection):

© Copyright 2009