Citations

Mayo Clinic

Clear

313 citation(s) found for "Ha, Lynne".

SLC35A2‐CDG: Functional characterization, expanded molecular, clinical, and biochemical phenotypes of 30 unreported Individuals
Sosicka, Paulina , Agadi, Satish , Almannai, Mohammed , Bacino, Carlos A. , Barone, Rita , Burton, Jennifer, Carlston, Colleen M. , Cohen, Julie S. , Coman, David , Dipple, Katrina M. , Dorrani, Naghmeh, Dobyns, William B. , Elias, Abdallah F. , Epstein, Leon G. , Gahl, William A. , Garozzo, Domenico , Hammer, Trine Bjørg , Haven, Jaclyn, Héron, Delphine, Herzog, Matthew , Hoganson, George, Hunter, Jesse M. , Jain, Mahim , Juusola, Jane, Lakhani, Shenela , Lee, Hane , Lewis, Katherine, Mak, Christopher Chun Yu , McKnight, Dianalee , Mendelsohn, Bryce A. , Mignot, Cyril , Mirzaa, Ghayda , Mitchell, Wendy G. , Muhle, Hiltrud, Nelson, Stanley F. , Olczak, Mariusz , Palmer, Christina G.S. , Partikian, Arthur , Pierson, Tyler Mark , Regan, Brigid M. , Sacoto, María J. Guillen , Scaglia, Fernando , Scheffer, Ingrid E. , Segal, Devorah , Singhal, Nilika S. , Striano, Pasquale, Sturiale, Luisa , Symonds, Joseph D. , Willis, Mary , Wolfe, Lynne A. , Yano, Shoji , Powis, Zöe , Suchy, Sharon F., Edmondson, Andrew C. , Grünewald, Stephanie , Longo, Nicola , Mak, Christopher C Y , Patterson, Marc C. , Ross, M Elizabeth , Scheffer, Ingrid E , Symonds, Joseph , Edmondson, Andrew C , Ng, Bobby G. , Botto, Lorenzo D. , Chung, Hon-Yin B , Juusola, Jane , Lee, Joy Li-Yueh , Lewis, Katherine, Lourenco, Charles , Quinonez, Shane C. , Tang, Sha , Vilain, Eric J. N. , Yang, Hui , Rosenfeld, Jill A. , Freeze, Hudson H.

Human Mutation | February 28, 2019 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1002/humu.23731 | PMID 30817854 Get It

PHPN: O2 Trials and Tribulations
Bartlett, Mary Lynne, Zeiger, Tonya K., Bartlett, Mary

Advances in Pulmonary Hypertension | February 26, 2019 | Volume: 12 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 152-155

10.21693/1933-088x-12.3.152 Get It

Impact of vaginal dehydroepiandosterone (DHEA) on vaginal symptoms in female cancer survivors: Trial N10C1 (Alliance).
Barton, Debra L. , Sloan, Jeff A. , Shuster, Lynne T., Gill, Paula, Bearden, James D. , Johnson, David , Stella, Philip J., Terstriep, Shelby A., Rana, Fauzia , Anderson, D. Mark , Loprinzi, Charles L. , Anderson, Daniel M.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | January 3, 2019 | Volume: 32 | Issue: 15_suppl | Pages: 9507-9507

10.1200/jco.2014.32.15_suppl.9507 Get It

Code of ethics for the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (Revised): Report of Task Group 109
Skourou, Christina , Sherouse, George W., Bahar, Nina, Bauer, Linda A., Fairobent, Lynne, Freedman, D. Jay, Genovese, Lisa M., Halvorsen, Per H. , Kirby, Neil , Mahmood, Usman , Ozturk, N, Osterman, K. Sunshine, Serago, Christopher F., Svatos, M, Wilson, Melissa L., Wilson, Melissa L.

Medical Physics | December 20, 2018 | Volume: 46 | Issue: 4 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/mp.13351 | PMID 30570754 Get It

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) has established a comprehensive Code of Ethics for its members. The Code is a formal part of AAPM governance, maintained as Professional Policy 24, and includes both principles of ethical practice and the rules by which a complaint will be adjudicated. The structure and content of the Code have been crafted to also serve the much broader purpose of giving practical ethical guidance to AAPM members for making sound decisions in their professional lives. The Code is structured in four major parts: a Preamble, a set of ten guiding Principles, Guidelines that elucidate the application of the Principles in various practice settings, and the formal Complaint process. Guidelines have been included to address evolving social and cultural norms, such as the use of social media and the broadening scope of considerations important in an evolving workplace. The document presented here is the first major revision of the AAPM Code of Ethics since 2008. This revision was approved by the Board of Directors to become effective 1 January 2019.
Perioperative Management and In-Hospital Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Repair of Pectus Excavatum: A Multicenter Registry Report From the Society for Pediatric Anesthesia Improvement Network
Muhly, Wallis T. , Beltran, Ralph J. , Bielsky, Alan , Bryskin, Robert B. , Chinn, Christopher D., Choudhry, Dinesh K. , Cucchiaro, Giovanni , Glover, Chris D. , Haile, Dawit T. , Kost‐Byerly, Sabine, Schnepper, Gregory D. , Agarwal, Rita , Bhalla, Tarun , Eisdorfer, Seth, Huang, Henry D. , Thomas, James J. , Tjia, Imelda , Wilder, Robert T., Fernández, Allison M. , Zurakowski, David , Maxwell, Lynne Gerson , Cravero, Joseph P.

Anesthesia & Analgesia | October 22, 2018 | Volume: 128 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 315-327

10.1213/ane.0000000000003829 | PMID 30346358 Get It

BACKGROUND: There are few comparative data on the analgesic options used to manage patients undergoing minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum (MIRPE). The Society for Pediatric Anesthesia Improvement Network was established to investigate outcomes for procedures where there is significant management variability. For our first study, we established a multicenter observational database to characterize the analgesic strategies used to manage pediatric patients undergoing MIRPE. Outcome data from the participating centers were used to assess the association between analgesic strategy and pain outcomes. METHODS: Fourteen institutions enrolled patients from June 2014 through August 2015. Network members agreed to an observational methodology where each institution managed patients based on their institutional standards and protocols. There was no requirement to standardize care. Patients were categorized based on analgesic strategy: epidural catheter (EC), paravertebral catheter (PVC), wound catheter (WC), no regional (NR) analgesia, and intrathecal morphine techniques. Primary outcomes, pain score and opioid consumption by postoperative day (POD), for each technique were compared while adjusting for confounders using multivariable modeling that included 5 covariates: age, sex, number of bars, Haller index, and use of preoperative pain medication. Pain scores were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction. Opioid consumption was analyzed using a multivariable quantile regression. RESULTS: Data were collected on 348 patients and categorized based on primary analgesic strategy: EC (122), PVC (57), WC (41), NR (120), and intrathecal morphine (8). Compared to EC, daily median pain scores were higher in patients managed with PVC (POD 0), WC (POD 0, 1, 2, 3), and NR (POD 0, 1, 2), respectively ( P < .001–.024 depending on group). Daily opioid requirements were higher in patients managed with PVC (POD 0, 1), WC (POD 0, 1, 2), and NR (POD 0, 1, 2) when compared to patients managed with EC ( P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate variation in pain management strategies for patients undergoing MIRPE within our network. The results indicate that most patients have mild-to-moderate pain postoperatively regardless of analgesic management. Patients managed with EC had lower pain scores and opioid consumption in the early recovery period compared to other treatment strategies.
AAPM medical physics practice guideline 10.a.: Scope of practice for clinical medical physics
Clements, Jessica B., Baird, Christopher T., Boer, Steven F. de, Fairobent, Lynne, Fisher, Tyler, Goodwin, James, Johnson, Jennifer Lynn, Kolsky, K. L., Mageras, G , Marsh, Rebecca M., Martin, Melissa , Parker, Brent C. , Pavord, Daniel C. , Schell, Michael C., Seibert, J. Anthony , Stevens, Donna M., Tarver, Russell, Waite‐Jones, Christopher G., Wingreen, Nicholai, Milman, Rebecca , Kolsky, Kathryn L, Gress, Dustin A. , Wingreen, Nicholai E., Millman, Rebecca

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics | October 19, 2018 | Volume: 19 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 11-25

10.1002/acm2.12469 | PMID 30338913 Get It

Abstract The American Association of Physicists in Medicine ( AAPM ) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline ( MPPG ) represents a policy statement by the AAPM , has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiation requires specific training, skills, and techniques as described in each document. As the review of the previous version of AAPM Professional Policy ( PP )‐17 (Scope of Practice) progressed, the writing group focused on one of the main goals: to have this document accepted by regulatory and accrediting bodies. After much discussion, it was decided that this goal would be better served through a MPPG . To further advance this goal, the text was updated to reflect the rationale and processes by which the activities in the scope of practice were identified and categorized. Lastly, the AAPM Professional Council believes that this document has benefitted from public comment which is part of the MPPG process but not the AAPM Professional Policy approval process. The following terms are used in the AAPM 's MPPG s: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.