40+ years of UMKC's Clinical Medical Librarian Program

Poster presented at the Quint Essential Conference: Convergence and Collaboration in Denver, Colorado, October 14, 201

Recommendations for Care of the Asymptomatic Patient

We present a set of reasonable guidelines for the care of healthy, asymptomatic individuals based upon recommendations prepared by an Internal Medicine review committee of Henry Ford Hospital. There recommendations have four goals: to prevent disease, to detect disease in an asymptomatic and potentially curable state, to enhance the patient\u27s quality of life, and to help physicians teach patients good health habits. Recommendations are made for infectious diseases, cancer, metabolic diseases, neurosensory conditions like visual and hearing loss, and general health habits. Some recommendations are at variance with those of well recognized authorities and should be viewed only as a suggested protocol for the care of the asymptomatic patient. Results of ongoing studies may alter our understanding of some areas of controversy and mandate revision of these guidelines periodically

Acute kidney injury requiring dialysis and in‐hospital mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease and non–ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing early vs delayed percutaneous coronary intervention: A nationwide analysis

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141458/1/clc22828.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141458/2/clc22828_am.pd

Ankle Brachial Index and Subsequent Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139089/1/jah31554.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139089/2/jah31554_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139089/3/jah31554-sup-0001-TableS1.pd

Where One Sits Affects Where Others Stand: Bias, the Bar, and Nominees to Federal District Courts

The American Bar Association\u27s Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary has evaluated potential federal judges since the 1950s. Here, we compare nominations to the circuit and district courts and find clear differences in how these two groups of nominees are evaluated the ABA. We propose these differences are a function of the lesser policymaking role and greater institutional constraints of district court judges, and the differences between trial and appellate court judges lead the ABA to favor different types of qualifications when evaluating nominees to these two types of courts

Where One Sits Affects Where Others Stand: Bias, the Bar, and Nominees to Federal District Courts

The American Bar Association\u27s Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary has evaluated potential federal judges since the 1950s. Here, we compare nominations to the circuit and district courts and find clear differences in how these two groups of nominees are evaluated the ABA. We propose these differences are a function of the lesser policymaking role and greater institutional constraints of district court judges, and the differences between trial and appellate court judges lead the ABA to favor different types of qualifications when evaluating nominees to these two types of courts