Copenhagen, Denmark
Copenhagen, Denmark

Time filter

Source Type

News Article | February 21, 2017
Site: www.24-7pressrelease.com

COPENHAGEN, DENMARK, February 21, 2017-- Susanne Ullman has been included in Marquis Who's Who. As in all Marquis Who's Who biographical volumes, individuals profiled are selected on the basis of current reference value. Factors such as position, noteworthy accomplishments, visibility, and prominence in a field are all taken into account during the selection process.Dr. Ullman is a dermatologist and educator who has been excelling in her career since establishing herself professionally in 1974. Now a professor of dermatology for the Bispebjerg Hospital at the University of Copenhagen, she demonstrates an expertise in diseases of the skin. Previously, Dr. Ullman came to prominence as a professor of dermatology at Righospitalet at the University of Copenhagen and a visiting professor at the University of Minnesota. Other noteworthy roles held in her career include coordinator for education of dermatologists in Denmark, and visiting professor at King Faisal University in Saudi Arabia and Hunan Medical University in China. In recognition of her professional excellence, she was selected for inclusion into Who's Who in Medicine and Healthcare, Who's Who in Science and Engineering, and Who's Who in the World.Before establishing herself professionally, Dr. Ullman prepared for her career by investing in her education. She earned an MD from the University of Copenhagen in 1965, a specialty degree in dermatology in 1976 and a Doctor of Medical Sciences in 1988. To stay at the top of her field, Dr. Ullman is a member of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venerology and the American Academy of Dermatology. In addition, she has shared her insights and expertise through numerous articles to professional journals and she is still active in scientific projects.About Marquis Who's Who :Since 1899, when A. N. Marquis printed the First Edition of Who's Who in America , Marquis Who's Who has chronicled the lives of the most accomplished individuals and innovators from every significant field of endeavor, including politics, business, medicine, law, education, art, religion and entertainment. Today, Who's Who in America remains an essential biographical source for thousands of researchers, journalists, librarians and executive search firms around the world. Marquis now publishes many Who's Who titles, including Who's Who in America , Who's Who in the World , Who's Who in American Law , Who's Who in Medicine and Healthcare , Who's Who in Science and Engineering , and Who's Who in Asia . Marquis publications may be visited at the official Marquis Who's Who website at www.marquiswhoswho.com


Christensen M.,Bispebjerg Hospital | Lundh A.,Rigshospitalet
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews | Year: 2016

Background: Pharmacotherapy in the elderly population is complicated by several factors that increase the risk of drug-related harms and less favourable effectiveness. The concept of medication review is a key element in improving the quality of prescribing and in preventing adverse drug events. Although there is no generally accepted definition of medication review, it can be broadly defined as a systematic assessment of pharmacotherapy for an individual patient that aims to optimise patient medication by providing a recommendation or by making a direct change. Medication review performed in adult hospitalised patients may lead to better patient outcomes. Objectives: We examined whether delivery of a medication review by a physician, pharmacist or other healthcare professional leads to improvement in health outcomes of hospitalised adult patients compared with standard care. Search methods: We searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) to November 2014, as well as International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and Web of Science to May 2015. In addition, we searched reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews. We searched trials registries and contacted experts to identify additional published and unpublished trials. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of medication review in hospitalised adult patients. We excluded trials of outclinic and paediatric patients. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included hospital readmissions, emergency department contacts and adverse drug events. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently included trials, extracted data and assessed trials for risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for clarification of data and for additional unpublished data. We calculated risk ratios for dichotomous data and mean differences for continuous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the overall certainty of evidence for the most important outcomes. Main results: We identified 6600 references (4647 references in our initial review) and included 10 trials (3575 participants). Follow-up ranged from 30 days to one year. Nine trials provided mortality data (3218 participants, 466 events), with a risk ratio of 1.02 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.19) (low-certainty evidence). Seven trials provided hospital readmission data (2843 participants, 1043 events) with a risk ratio of 0.95 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.04) (high-certainty evidence). Four trials provided emergency department contact data (1442 participants, 244 events) with a risk ratio of 0.73 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.03) (low-certainty evidence). The estimated reduction in emergency department contacts of 27% (with a CI ranging from 48% reduction to 3% increase in contacts) corresponds to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 37 for a low-risk population and 12 for a high-risk population over one year. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not significantly alter our results. Authors' conclusions: We found no evidence that medication review reduces mortality or hospital readmissions, although we did find evidence that medication review may reduce emergency department contacts. However, because of short follow-up ranging from 30 days to one year, important treatment effects may have been overlooked. High-quality trials with long-term follow-up (i.e. at least up to a year) are needed to provide more definitive evidence for the effect of medication review on clinically important outcomes such as mortality, readmissions and emergency department contacts, and on outcomes such as adverse events. Therefore, if used in clinical practice, medication reviews should be undertaken as part of a clinical trial with long-term follow-up. © 2016 The Cochrane Collaboration.


Patent
Copenhagen University, Bispebjerg Hospital and Technical University of Denmark | Date: 2012-04-18

The present invention pertains to use of sodium diacetate (NaHAc_(2)) as an antimicrobial agent against bacteria growing in biofilms. The aspects of the invention include a wound care product comprising sodium diacetate, a kit comprising a wound care product, and a method of treating an infected wound.


Patent
Copenhagen University, Bispebjerg Hospital and Technical University of Denmark | Date: 2010-12-21

The present invention relates to wound care products, devices and methods incorporating acetic acid for the treatment of bacterial infections, in particular bacterial biofilm infections. In particular it relates to a wound care product comprising acetic acid, wherein the product comprises at least one further antibacterial compound; a delivery system comprising a container connected to a means of delivery which is connected to a pad, wherein said container comprises a composition comprising acetic acid and said pad comprises a self-adhesive material; a kit comprising a dressing and an adhesive membrane, wherein the dressing comprises a composition comprising acetic acid; a method of treating a wound comprising a) applying acetic acid to the wound and b) applying a negative pressure to the wound.


Christensen M.,Bispebjerg Hospital
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) | Year: 2013

Pharmacotherapy in the elderly population is complicated by several factors that increase the risk of drug related harms and poorer adherence. The concept of medication review is a key element in improving the quality of prescribing and the prevention of adverse drug events. While no generally accepted definition of medication review exists, it can be defined as a systematic assessment of the pharmacotherapy of an individual patient that aims to evaluate and optimise patient medication by a change (or not) in prescription, either by a recommendation or by a direct change. Medication review performed in adult hospitalised patients may lead to better patient outcomes. We examined whether the delivery of a medication review by a physician, pharmacist or other healthcare professional improves the health outcomes of hospitalised adult patients compared to standard care. We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group's Specialised Register (August 2011); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 8; MEDLINE (1946 to August 2011); EMBASE (1980 to August 2011); CINAHL (1980 to August 2011); International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to August 2011); and Web of Science (August 2011). In addition we searched reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews. We searched trials registries and contacted experts to identify additional published and unpublished trials. We did not apply any language restrictions. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of medication review in hospitalised adult patients. We excluded trials of outclinic and paediatric patients. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes included hospital readmission, emergency department contacts and adverse drug events. Two review authors independently included trials, extracted data and assessed trials for risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for clarification of data and additional unpublished data. We calculated relative risks for dichotomous data and mean differences for continuous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). We identified 4647 references and included five trials (1186 participants). Follow-up ranged from 30 days to one year. We found no evidence of effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.23) and hospital readmissions (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.16), but a 36% relative reduction in emergency department contacts (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.89). It is uncertain whether medication review reduces mortality or hospital readmissions, but medication review seems to reduce emergency department contacts. However, the cost-effectiveness of this intervention is not known and due to the uncertainty of the estimates of mortality and readmissions and the short follow-up, important treatment effects may have been overlooked. Therefore, medication review should preferably be undertaken in the context of clinical trials. High quality trials with long follow-up are needed before medication review should be implemented.


Petersen S.H.,Bispebjerg Hospital
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) | Year: 2012

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common types of cancer in the Western world. Apart from surgery - which remains the mainstay of treatment for resectable primary tumours - postoperative (i.e., adjuvant) chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) based regimens is now the standard treatment in Dukes' C (TNM stage III) colon tumours i.e. tumours with metastases in the regional lymph nodes but no distant metastases. In contrast, the evidence for recommendations of adjuvant therapy in rectal cancer is sparse. In Europe it is generally acknowledged that locally advanced rectal tumours receive preoperative (i.e., neoadjuvant) downstaging by radiotherapy (or chemoradiotion), whereas in the US postoperative chemoradiotion is considered the treatment of choice in all Dukes' C rectal cancers. Overall, no universal consensus exists on the adjuvant treatment of surgically resectable rectal carcinoma; moreover, no formal systematic review and meta-analysis has been so far performed on this subject. We undertook a systematic review of the scientific literature from 1975 until March 2011 in order to quantitatively summarize the available evidence regarding the impact of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy on the survival of patients with surgically resectable rectal cancer. The outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). CCCG standard search strategy in defined databases with the following supplementary search. 1. Rect* or colorect* - 2. Cancer or carcinom* or adenocarc* or neoplasm* or tumour - 3. Adjuv* - 4. Chemother* - 5. Postoper* Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer who received no adjuvant chemotherapy with those receiving any postoperative chemotherapy regimen. Two authors extracted data and a third author performed an independent search for verification. The main outcome measure was the hazard ratio (HR) between the risk of event between the treatment arm (adjuvant chemotherapy) and the control arm (no adjuvant chemotherapy). The survival data were either entered directly in RevMan or extrapolated from Kaplan-Meier plots and then entered in RevMan. Due to expected clinical heterogeneity a random effects model was used for creating the pooled estimates of treatment efficacy. A total of 21 eligible RCTs were identified and used for meta-analysis purposes. Overall, 16,215 patients with colorectal cancer were enrolled, 9,785 being affected with rectal carcinoma.


Thomsen S.F.,Bispebjerg Hospital
Skin therapy letter | Year: 2010

Tobacco smoking is a serious and preventable health hazard that can cause or exacerbate a number of diseases and shorten life expectancy, but the role of smoking as an etiologic factor in the development of skin disease is largely unknown. Although epidemiological evidence is sparse, findings suggest that tobacco smoking is a contributing factor in systemic lupus erythematosus, psoriasis, palmoplantar pustulosis, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, hidradenitis suppurativa, and genital warts. In contrast, smoking may confer some protective effects and mitigate other skin diseases, notably pemphigus vulgaris, pyoderma gangrenosum, aphthous ulcers, and Behçet's disease. Various degenerative dermatologic conditions are also impacted by smoking, such as skin wrinkling and dysregulated wound healing, which can result in post-surgical complications and delayed or even arrested healing of chronic wounds. Most likely, alteration of inflammatory cell function and extracellular matrix turnover caused by smoking-induced oxidative stress are involved in the pathophysiologic mechanisms.


Shabanzadeh D.M.,Bispebjerg Hospital
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) | Year: 2012

Diverticulitis is an inflammatory complication to the very common condition diverticulosis. Uncomplicated diverticulitis has traditionally been treated with antibiotics with reference to the microbiology, extrapolation from trials on complicated intra-abdominal infections and clinical experience. To assess the effects of antibiotic interventions for uncomplicated diverticulitis on relevant outcome. Studies were identified by computerised searches of the The Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Ongoing trials were identified and reference lists of identified trials and relevant review articles were screened for additional studies. RCTs including all types of patients with a radiological confirmed diagnosis of left-sided uncomplicated diverticulitis. Interventions of antibiotics compared to any other antibiotic treatment (different regime, route of administration, dosage or duration of treatment), placebo or no antibiotics. Outcome measures were complications, emergency surgery, recurrence, late complications and duration of hospital stay and recovery of signs of infection. Two authors performed the searches, identification of RCTs, trial assessment and data extraction. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or involvement of a third part. Authors of trials were contacted to obtain additional data if needed or were contacted for preliminary results of ongoing trials. Effect estimates were extracted as relative risks (RR). Three RCTs were identified. A qualitative approach with no meta analysis was performed because of variety in interventions between included studies. Interventions compared were antibiotics to no antibiotics, single to double compound antibiotic therapy and short to long IV administration. None of the studies found significant difference between the tested interventions. Risk of bias varied from low to high. The newest RCT overall had the best quality and statistical power. The newest evidence from one RCT says there is no significant difference between antibiotics versus no antibiotics in the treatment of uncomplicated diverticulitis. Previous RCTs have only suggested a non-inferiority between different antibiotic regimes and treatment lengths. This new evidence needs confirmation from more RCTs before it can be implicated safely in clinical guidelines. Ongoing RCTs will be published in the years to come and more are needed. The role of antibiotics in the treatment of complicated diverticulitis has not been investigated yet.


Shabanzadeh D.M.,Bispebjerg Hospital | Sorensen L.T.,Bispebjerg Hospital
Annals of Surgery | Year: 2012

OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical site infections rate in obese patients after laparoscopic surgery with open general abdominal surgery. BACKGROUND: In mixed surgical populations, surgical site infections are fewer in laparoscopic surgery than in open surgery. It is not clear if this is also the case for obese patients, who have a higher risk of surgical site infections than nonobese patients. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane library (CENTRAL) were searched systematically for studies on laparoscopic surgery compared with open abdominal surgery. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting surgical site infection in groups of obese patients (body mass index ≥ 30) were included. Separate meta-analyses with a fixed effects model for RCTs and a random effects model for observational studies were performed. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed according to the Cochrane method and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Eight RCTs and 36 observational studies on bariatric and nonbariatric surgery were identified. Meta-analyses of RCTs and observational studies showed a significantly lower surgical site infection rate after laparoscopic surgery (OR = 0.19; 95% CI [0.08-0.45]; P = 0.0002 and OR = 0.33; 95% CI [0.26-0.42]; P = 0.00001). Sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of selection and detection bias confirmed the significant estimates with acceptable heterogeneity. No publication bias was present for the observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery in obese patients reduces surgical site infection rate by 70%-80% compared with open surgery across general abdominal surgical procedures. Future efforts should be focused on further development of laparoscopic surgery for the growing obese population. Copyright © 2012 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.


Patent
Bispebjerg Hospital | Date: 2013-12-18

The present invention relates to a medical implant for reducing pain in diseased joints such as synovial joints, in particular ball and socket joints such as the hip joint and the shoulder joint. One embodiment relates to a medical implant for attachment to and at least partly covering the femoral head, said medical implant comprising a dome shaped shell with an orifice, said shell having a height h_(1), an equatorial shell radius r_(s )and an orifice radius r_(o )wherein the shell radius r_(s)>r_(o), and h_(1)>r_(s), and the orifice is defined by a circumferential rounded edge.

Loading Bispebjerg Hospital collaborators
Loading Bispebjerg Hospital collaborators