https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Index en-au 5 https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:36688 Wed 24 Jun 2020 11:21:42 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:35488 Wed 10 Nov 2021 15:13:44 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:54635 Wed 06 Mar 2024 10:59:37 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:36880 Wed 06 Apr 2022 14:01:54 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:30534 Wed 02 Oct 2019 10:31:34 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:54542 Tue 27 Feb 2024 20:40:53 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:44248 U-test) were used to explore associations between responses and previous experience with medicines. Key findings: The most important factors when purchasing NPMs were effectiveness and safety. However, personal experience was the most common method of determining effectiveness. Most respondents believed buying NPMs in pharmacies gave access to advice, but were less likely to agree that pharmacies were associated with safe and effective treatments. Around half the respondents agreed that it is wrong to sell treatments lacking scientific evidence; many also agreed that it is up to consumers to decide what they want even without scientific evidence. Individuals experiencing an ineffective NPM were less likely to trust scientific evidence of efficacy as the sole source of effectiveness information; regular prescription medicine users often agreed that scientific evidence is needed to support effectiveness. Conclusions: Consumers have conflicting views regarding the need for scientific evidence and the desire for patient autonomy in NPM purchases. This presents a challenge for pharmacists wishing to maintain professional obligations to provide evidence-based treatments to consumers.]]> Tue 11 Oct 2022 12:14:38 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:31142 Thu 31 May 2018 11:46:47 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:50044 Thu 29 Jun 2023 14:38:43 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:34938 Thu 28 Oct 2021 12:36:30 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:37872 Thu 27 May 2021 15:52:03 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:37954 Thu 16 Nov 2023 12:21:57 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:48866 Thu 13 Apr 2023 10:01:04 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:41461 TP53 vary depending on the subtype, such that ER-negative tumours have a high rate, and in ER-positive tumours they are less common. Previous studies have implicated the intronic polymorphism in TP53 (rs17878362; or PIN3) with an increased risk of developing breast cancer, although little has been discerned on its prevalence in different subtypes. In this study, we investigated the prevalence of the PIN3 genotype in the blood of cohorts with ER-positive and the ER-negative subtype TNBC, and assessed its association with outcome. Methods: We genotyped 656 TNBC and 648 ER-positive breast cancer patients, along with 436 controls, and compared the prevalence of polymorphism rs17878362 in these cohorts. Results: We found there to be no differences in the prevalence of the PIN3 genotype between the ER-positive and TNBC cohorts. Furthermore, no statistically significant difference was observed in the outcome of patients in either cohort with respect to their PIN3 genotype. Conclusions: Taken together, our results do not support an association of the PIN3 genotype with increased breast cancer risk, either in ER-positive or ER-negative patients.]]> Thu 01 Sep 2022 11:19:24 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:37649 Mon 23 Aug 2021 12:41:17 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:35404 Fri 26 Jul 2019 09:57:20 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:35697 Fri 25 Oct 2019 12:59:19 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:49500 Fri 19 May 2023 12:08:56 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:49387 60 years old and accepted onto the National Organ Matching Service. This RKT Group was divided into donor renal cancers ≤30 mm and >30–≤50 mm. Adverse event profiles for RKT recipients were compared with 22 standard live donor recipients using logistic regression analyses. Recipient and transplant survivals for RKT were compared with 2050 controls from Australian New Zealand Dialysis Transplant Registry using Cox regression models. To increase statistical power for survival analyses, data from 25 RKT recipients from Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane were added, thus creating 48 RKT recipients.Results: There were no significant differences in mortality, transplant failure nor AEs between the 2 cancer Groups. RKT increased the risks of Adverse event profiles (odds ratio: 6.48 [2.92–15.44]; P < 0.001). RKT reduced mortality risk by 30% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70 [0.36–1.07]; P = 0.299) compared with those continuing on the transplant list who may or may not be transplanted. RKT significantly reduced mortality risk for those remaining on dialysis (HR: 2.86 [1.43–5.72]; P = 0.003). Transplant survival for RKT was reduced compared with control deceased donor (HR: 0.42 [0.21–0.83]; P = 0.013) and live donor transplants (HR: 0.33 [0.02–0.86]; P =0.023).Conclusions:The use of larger carefully selected cancer-resected kidneys for transplantation appears safe and effective. RKT confers a possible survival advantage compared with waiting for transplantation, an increased survival compared with those remaining on dialysis but reduced transplant survival.]]> Fri 12 May 2023 14:27:13 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:39989 N = 378 participated. Response rates 8.4% (N = 42; online survey) and 6% (N = 335; paper survey), respectively. Total percentages agreeing with system-based changes: 79% training, 64% oral NRT subsidy, 62% Medicare item for smoking cessation, 54% improved access to NRT patches. Within RANZCOG, more GPs (73.1%) agreed that oral NRT should be subsidised (P = 0.001) than obstetricians (53.7%). Conclusion: GPs and obstetricians agreed that system changes would improve their management of smoking in pregnancy. Oral NRT subsidy was the only pairwise group difference. Subsequently, oral NRT has been subsidised; in time, this may influence prescribing and quit rates.]]> Fri 01 Jul 2022 13:00:40 AEST ]]>