National factor(s) influencing publication output in the highest ranked medical journals are largely unknown. We sought to examine the relationship between national research funding and English proficiency on publication output. We identified all original research articles appearing in the five highest ranked general medical journals between 1997 and 2001. Using the country of the corresponding author as the source nation for each article, we determined a standardized publication rate across developed nations. We used multiple regression techniques to determine the influence of national expenditures on research and scores from the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), a surrogate for English proficiency, on publication output. There was a significant relationship of national spending on research and TOEFL scores to publication output of developed countries (p = 0.04; p < 0.01, respectively). These two variables explained approximately 71.5% of the variation in publication rate across developed nations around the world (R = 0.85; p < 0.01). Normalized for population size, English-speaking nations and certain northern European countries such as Denmark, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and Sweden had the highest rate of publication in the five highest ranked general medical journals, while Asian countries had generally low rates of publication. Research spending and English proficiency were strongly associated with publication output in the highest ranked general medical journals. While these data cannot be considered definitive due to their observational nature, they do suggest that for English-language medical journals, research funding and English proficiency may be important determinants of publication.

By the KDIGO definition, AKI occurred in two-thirds of patients following LTx. AKI portended greater risk of death and loss of kidney function.

Although prophylaxis is the most commonly used preventive strategy, significant variation exists in the way it is implemented. Specifically, duration of prophylaxis is extremely variable. Uniform international guidelines would be of value in this population.

We detected very small effects on patient-clinician communication and small effects on patient management, without detecting improvement in patient outcome.

No abstract

The present guideline requires formal dissemination to relevant target user groups, the development of tools for implementation into routine clinical practice and formal evaluation of the impact of the guideline on the quality of care of CTEPH patients. Moreover, the guideline will be updated periodically to reflect new evidence or clinical approaches.

No abstract

Diagnosing lung transplant rejection currently depends on histologic assessment of transbronchial biopsies (TBB) with limited reproducibility and considerable risk of complications. Mucosal biopsies are safer but not histologically interpretable. Microarray‐based diagnostic systems for TBBs and other transplants suggest such systems could assess mucosal biopsies as well. We studied 243 mucosal biopsies from the third bronchial bifurcation (3BMBs) collected from seven centers and classified them using unsupervised machine learning algorithms. Using the expression of a set of rejection‐associated transcripts annotated in kidneys and validated in hearts and lung transplant TBBs, the algorithms identified and scored major rejection and injury‐related phenotypes in 3BMBs without need for labeled training data. No rejection or injury, rejection, late inflammation, and recent injury phenotypes were thus scored in new 3BMBs. The rejection phenotype correlated with IFNG‐inducible transcripts, the hallmarks of rejection. Progressive atrophy‐related changes reflected by the late inflammation phenotype in 3BMBs suggest widespread time‐dependent airway deterioration, which was especially pronounced after two years posttransplant. Thus molecular assessment of 3BMBs can detect rejection in a previously unusable biopsy format with potential utility in patients with severe lung dysfunction where TBB is not possible and provide unique insights into airway deterioration. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02812290.