硅胶乳房植入物。

G. Brody
{"title":"硅胶乳房植入物。","authors":"G. Brody","doi":"10.1001/JAMA.1994.03520040031022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT To the Editor. —In their Commentary,1 Dr Kessler and colleagues lament \"the uncertainty and unease that patients are experiencing\" without acknowledging the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) significant contribution to this incertitude. The FDA's risk-benefit deliberations have consistently dwelt on safety issues while undervaluing the benefits of implants. For example, their Commentary selectively cited two anecdotal clinical studies without adequate controls and a study in rats that used a physically altered gel form not seen in vivo. Recent, much more meaningful epidemiologic studies showing no increase in autoimmune disease2,3 were ignored. Despite the efforts of many investigators, no good evidence yet exists supporting a causal relationship between implants and any known medical disease.The FDA publications have consistently accentuated the negative while refusing to add reassurance for apprehensive patients where appropriate. This is exemplified in their literature on breast cancer and breast-feeding, which raises concern that the language","PeriodicalId":73971,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Medical Women's Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1001/JAMA.1994.03520040031022","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Silicone gel breast implants.\",\"authors\":\"G. Brody\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/JAMA.1994.03520040031022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT To the Editor. —In their Commentary,1 Dr Kessler and colleagues lament \\\"the uncertainty and unease that patients are experiencing\\\" without acknowledging the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) significant contribution to this incertitude. The FDA's risk-benefit deliberations have consistently dwelt on safety issues while undervaluing the benefits of implants. For example, their Commentary selectively cited two anecdotal clinical studies without adequate controls and a study in rats that used a physically altered gel form not seen in vivo. Recent, much more meaningful epidemiologic studies showing no increase in autoimmune disease2,3 were ignored. Despite the efforts of many investigators, no good evidence yet exists supporting a causal relationship between implants and any known medical disease.The FDA publications have consistently accentuated the negative while refusing to add reassurance for apprehensive patients where appropriate. This is exemplified in their literature on breast cancer and breast-feeding, which raises concern that the language\",\"PeriodicalId\":73971,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Medical Women's Association\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1994-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1001/JAMA.1994.03520040031022\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Medical Women's Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMA.1994.03520040031022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Medical Women's Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMA.1994.03520040031022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

致编辑。在他们的评论中,Kessler博士及其同事哀叹“患者正在经历的不确定性和不安”,但没有承认食品和药物管理局(FDA)对这种不确定性的重大贡献。美国食品药品监督管理局的风险-收益审议一直停留在安全问题上,而低估了植入物的好处。例如,他们的评论有选择地引用了两项没有充分控制的轶事临床研究和一项在老鼠身上进行的研究,该研究使用了一种在体内未见过的物理改变的凝胶形式。最近,更有意义的流行病学研究表明,自身免疫性疾病没有增加2,3被忽视了。尽管许多研究人员做出了努力,但目前还没有很好的证据支持植入物与任何已知医学疾病之间的因果关系。FDA的出版物一直强调消极的一面,同时拒绝在适当的情况下为忧虑的患者增加安慰。这在他们关于乳腺癌和母乳喂养的文献中得到了体现,这引起了人们对语言的担忧
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Silicone gel breast implants.
ABSTRACT To the Editor. —In their Commentary,1 Dr Kessler and colleagues lament "the uncertainty and unease that patients are experiencing" without acknowledging the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) significant contribution to this incertitude. The FDA's risk-benefit deliberations have consistently dwelt on safety issues while undervaluing the benefits of implants. For example, their Commentary selectively cited two anecdotal clinical studies without adequate controls and a study in rats that used a physically altered gel form not seen in vivo. Recent, much more meaningful epidemiologic studies showing no increase in autoimmune disease2,3 were ignored. Despite the efforts of many investigators, no good evidence yet exists supporting a causal relationship between implants and any known medical disease.The FDA publications have consistently accentuated the negative while refusing to add reassurance for apprehensive patients where appropriate. This is exemplified in their literature on breast cancer and breast-feeding, which raises concern that the language
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信