scholarly journals Copeptin for the differential diagnosis and therapy management of hyponatremia in hospitalized patients - 'The Co-MED-Study'

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Nigro ◽  
Bettina Winzeler ◽  
Isabelle Suter-Widmer ◽  
Philipp Schuetz ◽  
Birsen Arici ◽  
...  
2004 ◽  
Vol 35 (01) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Springer ◽  
S Bechthold ◽  
A Jansson ◽  
K Kurnik ◽  
T Pfluger ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 77 (6) ◽  
pp. 526-533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michela Sali ◽  
Danilo Buonsenso ◽  
Pamela D'Alfonso ◽  
Flavio De Maio ◽  
Manuela Ceccarelli ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Petros Bouras-Vallianatos

This chapter examines John’s Medical Epitome. The focus here is on the first four of its six books. In contrast to the established view that this work was intended for physicians, it is argued that it was primarily written for philiatroi, intellectuals who were deeply interested in medicine, but not practising physicians themselves. The Medical Epitome, unlike John’s other two works, mainly consisted of material from earlier sources. The analysis of the text starts with a close reading of John’s proem and a discussion of the background of his dedicatee, the Byzantine statesman Alexios Apokaukos. It then shifts to an examination of the work’s structure with the aim of emphasizing John’s intentions in putting together his material. The analysis proceeds by way of a number of case studies focusing on diagnosis and therapy, and goes on to show that John intentionally condensed his material, removing specialized advice, so as to make it appeal to non-expert readers. Thus it is shown, for example, that the absence of details on invasive operations is consistent with the character of his intended readers, who were only able to use non-invasive techniques, such as phlebotomy and arteriotomy. Finally, the particular attention John paid to differential diagnosis, especially as regards eye affections, which is often supplemented with his own advice, is highlighted.


2008 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Imfeld

Rund jede vierte Person hat Mundgeruch. Dabei muss zwischen Foetor ex ore (90%) und Halitosis (10%) unterschieden werden. Ersterer ist nur im Mundatem perzeptierbar und hat seine Ursache in der Mundhöhle. Halitosis ist im Mund- und/oder Nasenatem feststellbar und die Ursache liegt entweder nasal/pharyngeal (lokale Halitosis nur im Nasenatem), pulmonal oder selten gastrointestinal (systemische Halitosis im Mund- und Nasenatem). Eine entsprechende Differenzialdiagnose ist Voraussetzung für die Kausaltherapie. Verantwortlich für den Foetor ex ore sind flüchtige Schwefelverbindungen, welche durch proteolytische Mikroorganismen in der Mundhöhle produziert werden. Prophylaxe und Therapie basieren auf der mechanischen und chemischen Reduktion dieser Erreger. Mundgeruch kann ein nachhaltiges soziales Handikap sein, weshalb das Thema nicht tabuisiert werden darf.


2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 1035-1052 ◽  
Author(s):  
Volker Meyer ◽  
Nina Kerk ◽  
Stefanie Meyer ◽  
Tobias Goerge

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document