Sentences with phrase «of adverse outcomes in»

We analyzed all children born in Sweden between 1983 and 2009 to investigate the effect of SDP on multiple indicators of adverse outcomes in three areas: pregnancy outcomes (birth weight, preterm birth and being born small for gestational age), long - term cognitive abilities (low academic achievement and general cognitive ability) and externalizing behaviors (criminal conviction, violent criminal conviction and drug misuse).

Examples of risk factors that have been found to be associated with depression included partner conflict, single - parenthood, low education and stressful life events [44, 45, 46], which have all, in turn, been related to greater risk of adverse outcomes in children [47, 48, 49].

After adjusting for variables which could impact the outcomes, such as age, sex, intensity of depression, and other conditions in addition to use of other medicines, the researchers determined that SSRIs and medications in the group of other medications for depression were linked to a greater risk of a number of adverse outcomes in contrast to TCAs.

Did they provide you with the relative rates of adverse outcomes in home vs. hospital?

Predictors of adverse outcome in adolescents and adults with isolated left ventricular noncompaction

Not exact matches

Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in such forward - looking statements and that should be considered in evaluating our outlook include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) our ability to continue to grow our business and execute our growth strategy, including the timing, execution, and profitability of new and maturing programs; 2) our ability to perform our obligations under our new and maturing commercial, business aircraft, and military development programs, and the related recurring production; 3) our ability to accurately estimate and manage performance, cost, and revenue under our contracts, including our ability to achieve certain cost reductions with respect to the B787 program; 4) margin pressures and the potential for additional forward losses on new and maturing programs; 5) our ability to accommodate, and the cost of accommodating, announced increases in the build rates of certain aircraft; 6) the effect on aircraft demand and build rates of changing customer preferences for business aircraft, including the effect of global economic conditions on the business aircraft market and expanding conflicts or political unrest in the Middle East or Asia; 7) customer cancellations or deferrals as a result of global economic uncertainty or otherwise; 8) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which we operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; 9) the success and timely execution of key milestones such as the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals, including our ability to obtain in a timely fashion any required regulatory or other third party approvals for the consummation of our announced acquisition of Asco, and customer adherence to their announced schedules; 10) our ability to successfully negotiate, or re-negotiate, future pricing under our supply agreements with Boeing and our other customers; 11) our ability to enter into profitable supply arrangements with additional customers; 12) the ability of all parties to satisfy their performance requirements under existing supply contracts with our two major customers, Boeing and Airbus, and other customers, and the risk of nonpayment by such customers; 13) any adverse impact on Boeing's and Airbus» production of aircraft resulting from cancellations, deferrals, or reduced orders by their customers or from labor disputes, domestic or international hostilities, or acts of terrorism; 14) any adverse impact on the demand for air travel or our operations from the outbreak of diseases or epidemic or pandemic outbreaks; 15) our ability to avoid or recover from cyber-based or other security attacks, information technology failures, or other disruptions; 16) returns on pension plan assets and the impact of future discount rate changes on pension obligations; 17) our ability to borrow additional funds or refinance debt, including our ability to obtain the debt to finance the purchase price for our announced acquisition of Asco on favorable terms or at all; 18) competition from commercial aerospace original equipment manufacturers and other aerostructures suppliers; 19) the effect of governmental laws, such as U.S. export control laws and U.S. and foreign anti-bribery laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the United Kingdom Bribery Act, and environmental laws and agency regulations, both in the U.S. and abroad; 20) the effect of changes in tax law, such as the effect of The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the «TCJA») that was enacted on December 22, 2017, and changes to the interpretations of or guidance related thereto, and the Company's ability to accurately calculate and estimate the effect of such changes; 21) any reduction in our credit ratings; 22) our dependence on our suppliers, as well as the cost and availability of raw materials and purchased components; 23) our ability to recruit and retain a critical mass of highly - skilled employees and our relationships with the unions representing many of our employees; 24) spending by the U.S. and other governments on defense; 25) the possibility that our cash flows and our credit facility may not be adequate for our additional capital needs or for payment of interest on, and principal of, our indebtedness; 26) our exposure under our revolving credit facility to higher interest payments should interest rates increase substantially; 27) the effectiveness of any interest rate hedging programs; 28) the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting; 29) the outcome or impact of ongoing or future litigation, claims, and regulatory actions; 30) exposure to potential product liability and warranty claims; 31) our ability to effectively assess, manage and integrate acquisitions that we pursue, including our ability to successfully integrate the Asco business and generate synergies and other cost savings; 32) our ability to consummate our announced acquisition of Asco in a timely matter while avoiding any unexpected costs, charges, expenses, adverse changes to business relationships and other business disruptions for ourselves and Asco as a result of the acquisition; 33) our ability to continue selling certain receivables through our supplier financing program; 34) the risks of doing business internationally, including fluctuations in foreign current exchange rates, impositions of tariffs or embargoes, compliance with foreign laws, and domestic and foreign government policies; and 35) our ability to complete the proposed accelerated stock repurchase plan, among other things.

These risks and uncertainties include, among others: the unfavorable outcome of litigation, including so - called «Paragraph IV» litigation and other patent litigation, related to any of our products or products using our proprietary technologies, which may lead to competition from generic drug manufacturers; data from clinical trials may be interpreted by the FDA in different ways than we interpret it; the FDA may not agree with our regulatory approval strategies or components of our filings for our products, including our clinical trial designs, conduct and methodologies and, for ALKS 5461, evidence of efficacy and adequacy of bridging to buprenorphine; clinical development activities may not be completed on time or at all; the results of our clinical development activities may not be positive, or predictive of real - world results or of results in subsequent clinical trials; regulatory submissions may not occur or be submitted in a timely manner; the company and its licensees may not be able to continue to successfully commercialize their products; there may be a reduction in payment rate or reimbursement for the company's products or an increase in the company's financial obligations to governmental payers; the FDA or regulatory authorities outside the U.S. may make adverse decisions regarding the company's products; the company's products may prove difficult to manufacture, be precluded from commercialization by the proprietary rights of third parties, or have unintended side effects, adverse reactions or incidents of misuse; and those risks and uncertainties described under the heading «Risk Factors» in the company's most recent Annual Report on Form 10 - K and in subsequent filings made by the company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission («SEC»), which are available on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov.

«The complexity of this deal and the measurement of the outcomes makes this event challenging and we fear disruption, in the interim, could have an adverse impact on business,» he writes.

Let us say that you reckon there is a 20 % chance of an adverse outcome; that is like saying you will be proven wrong one in every five times.

One must ask then how it is that if Protestant leaders in higher education generally made the right — or at least virtually inevitable — decisions, what has gone wrong that the outcome should be so adverse to the apparent interests of Protestant Christianity?

«The Australian beverages industry is responsive to the health and dietary requirements of Australians but isolating any food or beverage as the sole contributor in any adverse health outcome overlooks many other factors that need to be considered such as health, diet and lifestyle,» the Australian Beverages Council CEO Geoff Parker said.

Mr Joyce has previously described ESCAS as making Australia «a clear world leader in the welfare of exported live animals» due to statistics that showed from a performance report that 8,035,633 livestock were exported with just 12,958 animals — or 0.16 pc — experiencing a potentially adverse animal welfare outcome.

Explain that if they plan birth at home there is a small increase in the risk of an adverse outcome for the baby.

Moreover, in out - of - hospital settings, there is likely less antepartum testing and no continuous electronic intrapartum fetal monitoring, both of which may have affected adverse outcomes.

In reality, only a very small proportion of home birth transports actually do result in such an adverse outcome, and thus essentially have a negligible effect on hospital outcomeIn reality, only a very small proportion of home birth transports actually do result in such an adverse outcome, and thus essentially have a negligible effect on hospital outcomein such an adverse outcome, and thus essentially have a negligible effect on hospital outcomes.

Quote from the midwife site:» There was no evidence that planned home birth among low risk women leads to an increased risk of severe adverse maternal outcomes in a maternity care system with well trained midwives and a good referral and transportation system.»

I counter: To insist the general risk pool (etc) pay for your first birth without medical resources present, in spite of the fact that same risk pool will still be responsible for caring for any adverse outcomes due to lack of medical resources is hypocritical beyond belief.

Her research portfolio includes findings that suggest disparities in adverse pregnancy outcomes begin as early as conception, multivitamin use around the time of conception prevents some miscarriages, over-the-counter use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents is not a probable cause of miscarriage (and may be protective in some women), and the vast majority of uterine fibroids are not associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes including miscarriage and preterm birth, though fibroids are related to a moderately higher likelihood of cesarean.

Dr. Fisher believes that dispassionate, rigorous study of birth across all settings is more important than ever given disparities in women's access to trained and licensed care providers, current and future physician workforce issues, rising costs of health care, and unacceptably high rates of adverse outcomes for mothers and infants in the U.S. compared to other industrialized countries.

Ongoing projects include studies of gene - environment interactions and adverse pregnancy outcomes, as well as informed medical decision making demonstration projects in Medicaid maternity populations and within HealthWise, the nation's largest source of health information materials distributed through healthcare networks.

Women who planned a home birth were at reduced risk of all obstetric interventions assessed and were at similar or reduced risk of adverse maternal outcomes compared with women who planned to give birth in hospital accompanied by a midwife or physician.

The incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes was low in all settings.

For healthy nulliparous women with a low risk pregnancy, the risk of an adverse perinatal outcome seems to be higher for planned births at home, and the intrapartum transfer rate is high in all settings other than an obstetric unit

* If * morbidity is lower in the homebirth group because more of those ill women died, and were thus removed from the sample, the apparent rate of «severe adverse maternal» outcomes has been artificially deflated in the homebirth group — by an unknown amount — and therefore is evidence of pretty much nothing.

For healthy women with low risk pregnancies, the incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes is low in all birth settings

There is a lack of good quality evidence comparing the risk of rare but serious adverse perinatal outcomes in these settings

There was no evidence that planned home birth among low risk women leads to an increased risk of severe adverse maternal outcomes in a maternity care system with well trained midwives and a good referral and transportation system.

The strengths of the study include the ability to compare outcomes by the woman's planned place of birth at the start of care in labour, the high participation of midwifery units and trusts in England, the large sample size and statistical power to detect clinically important differences in adverse perinatal outcomes, the minimisation of selection bias through achievement of a high response rate and absence of self selection bias due to non-consent, the ability to compare groups that were similar in terms of identified clinical risk (according to current clinical guidelines) and to further increase the comparability of the groups by conducting an additional analysis restricted to women with no complicating conditions identified at the start of care in labour, and the ability to control for several important potential confounders.

Discontinuation of epidural analgesia late in labour for reducing the adverse delivery outcomes associated with epidural analgesia.

Tanaka K, Yamada H, Minami M, Kataoka S, Numazaki K, Minakami H, Tsutsumi H. «Screening for vaginal shedding of cytomegalovirus in healthy pregnant women using real - time PCR: correlation of CMV in the vagina and adverse outcome of pregnancy.»

Regional variations in practice significantly affect rates of interventions, near misses, and adverse outcomes.

A 2014 study that examines nearly 17,000 courses of midwife - led care confirms that among low - risk women, home births result in low rates of interventions without an increase in adverse outcomes for babies and mothers alike.

Secondly, some conditions mentioned in this brochure may increase the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes including premature labor and delivery, birth injury, and stillbirth.

The tradeoff between the additional physical safety conferred by a hospital setting in the case of an adverse outcome, and the emotional comfort of being in a familiar environment, is sufficient for her.

The study reviewed the births of nearly 17,000 women and found that, among low - risk women, planned home births result in low rates of birth interventions without an increase in adverse outcomes for mothers and newborns.

We categorized out - of - hospital and in - hospital births in Oregon according to the intended place of delivery and in comparing outcomes found that the risks for some adverse neonatal outcomes were increased among planned out - of - hospital births.

In many previous U.S. studies, it was not possible to disaggregate planned in - hospital births from planned out - of - hospital births that took place in the hospital after a woman's intrapartum transfer to the hospital.3, 9,10 The latter births represent 16.5 % of planned out - of - hospital births in our population, and misclassification of these births as in - hospital births caused rates of adverse outcomes among planned out - of - hospital births to be underestimated (in some cases, substantiallyIn many previous U.S. studies, it was not possible to disaggregate planned in - hospital births from planned out - of - hospital births that took place in the hospital after a woman's intrapartum transfer to the hospital.3, 9,10 The latter births represent 16.5 % of planned out - of - hospital births in our population, and misclassification of these births as in - hospital births caused rates of adverse outcomes among planned out - of - hospital births to be underestimated (in some cases, substantiallyin - hospital births from planned out - of - hospital births that took place in the hospital after a woman's intrapartum transfer to the hospital.3, 9,10 The latter births represent 16.5 % of planned out - of - hospital births in our population, and misclassification of these births as in - hospital births caused rates of adverse outcomes among planned out - of - hospital births to be underestimated (in some cases, substantiallyin the hospital after a woman's intrapartum transfer to the hospital.3, 9,10 The latter births represent 16.5 % of planned out - of - hospital births in our population, and misclassification of these births as in - hospital births caused rates of adverse outcomes among planned out - of - hospital births to be underestimated (in some cases, substantiallyin our population, and misclassification of these births as in - hospital births caused rates of adverse outcomes among planned out - of - hospital births to be underestimated (in some cases, substantiallyin - hospital births caused rates of adverse outcomes among planned out - of - hospital births to be underestimated (in some cases, substantiallyin some cases, substantially).

Rates of obstetrical intervention are high in U.S. hospitals, and we found large absolute differences in the risks of these interventions between planned out - of - hospital births and in - hospital births.38 In contrast, serious adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes are infrequent in all the birth settings we assessed, and the absolute differences in risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analysein U.S. hospitals, and we found large absolute differences in the risks of these interventions between planned out - of - hospital births and in - hospital births.38 In contrast, serious adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes are infrequent in all the birth settings we assessed, and the absolute differences in risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analysein the risks of these interventions between planned out - of - hospital births and in - hospital births.38 In contrast, serious adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes are infrequent in all the birth settings we assessed, and the absolute differences in risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analysein - hospital births.38 In contrast, serious adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes are infrequent in all the birth settings we assessed, and the absolute differences in risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analyseIn contrast, serious adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes are infrequent in all the birth settings we assessed, and the absolute differences in risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analysein all the birth settings we assessed, and the absolute differences in risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analysein risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analysein multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analyses.

For example, the Dutch home - birth system (in which home birth is common and adverse outcomes are rare) includes formal collaborative agreements between out - of - hospital and in - hospital providers, clear and mutually agreed - upon stratification of risk, and protocols for the transfer of care.35, 36 The process of devising evidence - based guidelines for U.S. home births is under way.37

Labor induction has been increasing since the early 1990s, 1 and the rate is running at about 20 % for pregnancies at term.2, 3 Induction of labor compared with spontaneous labor is associated with adverse maternal outcomes, including at least a doubling in the caesarean delivery rate, 4,5 25 — 50 % increase in instrumental vaginal delivery rate, 3,5 higher postpartum hemorrhage rate, 5 and prolonged labor.5 Neonates born after induced labor are more likely to have low Apgar score and low umbilical cord blood pH. 5

In analyses adjusted for maternal race and ethnic group, age, parity, and medical conditions associated with greater risk, the associations between planned location of delivery and most adverse outcomes and obstetrical procedures remained significant (Table 4).

«Planned home births result in low rates of interventions without an increase in adverse outcomes for mothers and babies,» Simkins boasts.

Planned birth at home in low risk women without complicating conditions at the start of care in labour was associated with significant cost savings and a significant decrease in adverse perinatal outcomes avoided.

There was, however, an increased incidence of adverse perinatal outcome associated with planned birth at home in nulliparous low risk women, resulting in the probability of it being the most cost effective option at a cost effectiveness threshold of # 20000 declining to 0.63.

This economic evaluation was based on a rigorously conducted cohort study of sufficient size to detect clinically important differences in adverse perinatal outcomes.

We used multiple regression to estimate the differences in total cost between the settings for birth and to adjust for potential confounders, including maternal age, parity, ethnicity, understanding of English, marital status, BMI, index of multiple deprivation score, parity, and gestational age at birth, which could each be associated with planned place of birth and with adverse outcomes.12 For the generalised linear model on costs, we selected a γ distribution and identity link function in preference to alternative distributional forms and link functions on the basis of its low Akaike's information criterion (AIC) statistic.

In further analyses restricted to women without complicating conditions at the start of care in labour, the adjusted odds of adverse perinatal outcomes were higher for births planned at home compared with those planned in obstetric units (adjusted odds ratio 1.59, 95 % confidence interval 1.01 to 2.52In further analyses restricted to women without complicating conditions at the start of care in labour, the adjusted odds of adverse perinatal outcomes were higher for births planned at home compared with those planned in obstetric units (adjusted odds ratio 1.59, 95 % confidence interval 1.01 to 2.52in labour, the adjusted odds of adverse perinatal outcomes were higher for births planned at home compared with those planned in obstetric units (adjusted odds ratio 1.59, 95 % confidence interval 1.01 to 2.52in obstetric units (adjusted odds ratio 1.59, 95 % confidence interval 1.01 to 2.52).

The paucity of evidence for the longer term consequences of adverse events and other health outcomes after birth for both mother and baby remains and further research to generate combined QALY estimates for the linked mother - baby dyad should be a priority for research in this specialty.

There was, however, an increased incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes associated with planned birth at home in nulliparous low risk women, resulting in the probability of it being the most cost effective option at a threshold of # 20000 declining to 0.63.

The definition of low risk used in the cohort study was based on criteria contained in the NICE Intrapartum Care Guidelines.11 The primary clinical outcome was a composite measure of adverse perinatal outcomes encompassing perinatal mortality and specified neonatal morbidities (box).