scholarly journals Extraoral versus endoscopic-assisted transoral treatment modalities for mandibular condylar fractures: a current opinion

2021 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 720-722
Author(s):  
Manish Anand ◽  
Shreya Panwar
2011 ◽  
Vol 401 (2) ◽  
pp. 553-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Tsivou ◽  
Dimitrios G. Georgakopoulos ◽  
Helen A. Dimopoulou ◽  
Michael Α. Koupparis ◽  
Julia Atta-Politou ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Ruben Bolt ◽  
Pieter Heuvelmans ◽  
Anne Benjaminse ◽  
Mark A. Robinson ◽  
Alli Gokeler

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (12) ◽  
pp. 1817-1824 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh H. K. Fullagar ◽  
Alan McCall ◽  
Franco M. Impellizzeri ◽  
Terry Favero ◽  
Aaron J. Coutts

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e175-e182
Author(s):  
Bianca Devitt ◽  
Jennifer Philip ◽  
Madhu Singh ◽  
Sue-Anne McLachlan

PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary cancer meetings (MDMs) are an integral component of quality care; however, little research exists regarding patients’ views on this model of care. We aimed to explore and understand the attitudes of patients toward MDMs. METHODS: A mixed methods exploratory design was used. Qualitative data from patients with a current or previous diagnosis of cancer were collected and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Results informed the development of a questionnaire survey that was administered to patients with a current or previous diagnosis of cancer. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Nine patients participated in 3 focus groups, and 152 patients (response rate, 90%) completed the questionnaire. Patients were strongly supportive of MDMs and thought that all patients with cancer should be routinely discussed. More than 90% of surveyed patients believed MDMs were reassuring, meant all treatment modalities were considered, and led to evidence-based treatment recommendations. Patients wanted MDMs to focus on medical treatment planning rather than psychosocial issues, and 87% regarded the meeting as confidential. Patients described a preference for doctor-led decision making, and most (84%) wanted MDM treatment decisions to be discussed with them in a subsequent consultation, with 73% of patients also wanting this in a written format. CONCLUSION: Patients strongly endorse MDMs as a means to develop an evidence-based, medical treatment plan agreed to by consensus. They want to be purposely informed of the meeting and its outcomes. Results from this study can help inform future guidelines on the conduct of MDMs.


2012 ◽  
Vol 117 (6) ◽  
pp. 1516-1526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bram Neirinck ◽  
Omer Van der Biest ◽  
Jef Vleugels

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandra Majorana ◽  
Elena Bardellini ◽  
Francesca Amadori ◽  
Giulio Conti ◽  
Antonella Polimeni

Numen ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karel Van Der Toorn ◽  
Karel Van Der Toorn

AbstractThis contribution discusses the problem of the origin of the goddess Anat-Yahu and the related issue of the cultural background of the Jewish colony at Elephantine. It is argued that Anat-Yahu has been modeled after Anat-Bethel. Contrary to a current opinion, neither Bethel nor Anat-Bethel can be regarded as Phoenician gods. They are late Aramaean gods whose cult is confined to North Syria. Anat-Yahu must be regarded as an Aramaean creation, elicited by the identification of Yahu with Bethel. The latter identification was one of the results of the Aramaean migration to Samaria, either enforced or voluntary, at the end of the 8th century. The theory here proposed assumes that the Jews and Aramaeans of the colonies at Elephantine and Syene originated predominantly from Northern Israel. The ultimate origins of the Aramaean settlers go back to North Syria. The Jewish character of the Elephantine colony is secondary. It can be accounted for by the Judaean transit of Israelite colonists on their way to Egypt and the secondary influx of actual Judaeans. Yet, despite the common designation of the Elephantine colony as "Jewish", its religion is in fact Israelite.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document