Sentences with phrase «risk of an adverse outcome»

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

It is essential to note that these significantly increased risks of adverse outcomes from the setting of home and from the setting of free - standing birth centers reported here may be serious underestimations of clinical complications.

«When one considers the modest decrease in risk of adverse outcomes associated with the use of a number of widely used medications such as anti-cholesterol drugs, the effect sizes seen in this study are really impressive,» said Dr. Memtsoudis.

«After careful examination of the burden of disease among women aged 40 to 54 years, the guideline development group (GDG) concluded that the lesser, but not insignificant, burden of disease for women aged 40 to 44 years and the higher cumulative risk of adverse outcomes no longer warranted a direct recommendation to begin screening at age 40 years.»

In the article, Stamatina Iliodromiti from the University of Glasgow, UK, and colleagues found birth weight less than 25th or greater than 85th centile to be associated with greater risk of adverse outcomes compared with birth weight within these cutoffs, suggesting an expansion of the definition of «fetus at risk» beyond the less than 10th or greater than 90th centile range that is commonly used to trigger surveillance of fetal well - being and / or delivery.

In a new study, a hospital surveillance program focusing on reducing the risks of sepsis, known as the two - stage Clinical Decision Support (CDS) system, was found to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes, such as death and hospice discharge for sepsis patients, by 30 % over the course of one year.

The hospital's early recognition and treatment of sepsis resulted in a 30 % reduced risk of adverse outcomes for sepsis and severe sepsis patients, such as death or discharge to hospice.

According to new research published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, the current policy of limiting thyroid tests to women at high risk of thyroid disease overlooks most cases of thyroid disease during pregnancy, and undiagnosed, untreated thyroid disease in pregnancy carries a significant risk of an adverse outcome for both mother and baby.

Approximately 37 % of all children live in poverty for some period during their childhood.16 Children who are born into poverty and live persistently in poor conditions are at greatest risk of adverse outcomes.

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].

It is vital to consider the role of treatment of ADHD in decreasing the individual's risk of adverse outcomes.

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.

My conclusion is that the easing of financial conditions resulting from non-traditional policy actions has had a material effect on both nominal and real growth and has demonstrably reduced the risk of particularly adverse 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.

Helping adolescent males to delay fatherhood may also be important from a child health perspective: research that controlled for maternal age and other key factors found teenage fatherhood associated with an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth, low birth weight and neonatal death (Chen et al, 2007).

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.

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

Impact of interpregnancy interval on the subsequent risk of adverse perinatal outcomes.

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

Regulating it, using better trained practitioners and proper guidelines for risking - out and transfer definitely would reduce the rate of adverse outcomes.

For nulliparous women, there is some evidence that planning birth at home is associated with a higher risk of an adverse perinatal outcome.

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.

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 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.

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 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

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 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.

Nevertheless, «travel times greater than 20 minutes [to a healthcare facility] have been associated with increased risk of adverse neonatal outcomes, including mortality.»

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).

This cost effectiveness information, however, should be considered in the light of an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcome associated with planned home birth in low risk nulliparous women.

There does not appear to be an associated increased risk of adverse maternal, fetal, or neonatal outcomes.

The available evidence does not suggest an increased risk of adverse maternal outcomes with water immersion during labor and delivery.

The author examined the safety of CNM attended home deliveries compared with certified nurse midwife in - hospital deliveries in the United States as measured by the risk of adverse infant outcomes among women with term, singleton, vaginal deliveries.

Enabling women to breastfeed is also a public health priority because, on a population level, interruption of lactation is associated with adverse health outcomes for the woman and her child, including higher maternal risks of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease, and greater infant risks of infectious disease, sudden infant death syndrome, and metabolic disease (2, 4).

Low - risk women in this cohort experienced high rates of physiologic birth and low rates of intervention without an increase in adverse outcomes.»

In today's peer - reviewed Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health (JMWH), a landmark study confirms that among low - risk women, planned home births result in low rates of interventions without an increase in adverse outcomes for mothers and babies.

I would say the death of one's child is an adverse outcome, and even a small risk of that should be taken very seriously.

The last study is a British one, which accounted for socioeconomic factors, age, parity, smoking and BMI and still found an elevated risk of adverse maternal outcome for African and Carribean women.

They go on to say «Low - risk women in this cohort experienced high rates of physiologic birth and low rates of intervention without an increase in adverse outcomes» which is a lie.

«among low - risk women, planned home births result in low rates of interventions without an increase in adverse outcomes for mothers and babies.»

A comparison of adverse neonatal outcomes did not identify increased risk for babies born at home as part of the HBDP.