<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: aided</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'aided'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22aided%22&t=%22aided%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:53:12 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Doctors Are “Sponges?”</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4512394&amp;cid=t_179933_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fdoctors-are-sponges%2F2011.02.23</link>
            <description>I am a doctor. Go ahead, call me what you may. Group me into a neatly, prejudged category: &amp;#8220;All you doctors.” Just don’t label me a sponge.
That’s right. Recently in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Andy Kessler, famous author and former hedge fund manager smart enough to turn $100 million into $1 billion, grouped doctors into a sub-category of the service economy which he labeled as &amp;#8220;sponges.&amp;#8221; We could have done worse: His other categories included &amp;#8220;sloppers&amp;#8221; (DMV workers), &amp;#8220;slimers&amp;#8221; (financial planners), and &amp;#8220;thieves&amp;#8221; (cable companies).
It seems that doctors &amp;#8212; along with cosmetologists, lawyers, and real estate brokers &amp;#8212; offend him because of the tests and licenses that we deem necessary:
Sponges are those who earned t...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4512394</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:00:37 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4512394</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Does CAT help to improve IVF pregnancy rates ?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3679820&amp;cid=t_179933_112_f&amp;fid=34971&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdoctorandpatient.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F06%2Fdoes-cat-help-to-improve-ivf-pregnancy.html</link>
            <description>IVF patients are always on the lookout for innovations which will improve their chances of success . For example, many IVF patients ask us whether we do IMSI or CAT. These are techniques which have been aggressively promoted in the press, but do not really help the patient at all. I have written about IMSI in an earlier post. Let me discuss CAT ( cumulus-aided transfer) in this post.IVF doctors have always been frustrated by the fact that though we are quite good at growing embryos in the lab, most of these embryos do not become babies. Embryo implantation is an inefficient process, and trying to ensure that every embryo we transfer becomes a baby is the &quot;holy grail&quot; for all IVF specialists , which is why we use techniques such as blastocyst transfer and laser assisted hatching, to try to ...</description>
            <author>The Patient's Doctor</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3679820</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:07:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3679820</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>September 10, 2008</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1865683&amp;cid=t_179933_149_f&amp;fid=35780&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwalkerma.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F10%2F10%2Fseptember-10-2008%2F</link>
            <description>I came across an interesting site that provides useful information for anyone interested in computer aided drug design. BindingMoad.org is a database derived from the PDB, but includes only high resolution protein structures with bound ligands. Other information such as binding data is also included.
&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; (Source: one in ten thousand)</description>
            <author>one in ten thousand</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1865683</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:22:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1865683</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Computer-Aided Psychotherapy Works, But Who’s Using It?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1402955&amp;cid=t_179933_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2008%2F04%2F27%2Fcomputer-aided-psychotherapy-works-but-whos-using-it%2F</link>
            <description>Back in December 2007, the British Journal of Psychiatry published an editorial examining the use of computers to help aid people with mental health concerns. Most of these programs focus on psychoeducational techniques (sort of like distance learning) of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). One of the things that CBT is well-known for, compared to many other psychotherapy techniques, is that it is heavily researched (with generally positive results &amp;#8212; if you&amp;#8217;re looking for a proven psychotherapy technique, CBT is it). 
	The BJP editorial looked at the studies that have examined computer-aided psychotherapy systems and found an amazing 103 randomized-controlled trials (out of 175 studies total). While the abstract doesn&amp;#8217;t describe how many patients were enrolled in these 10...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1402955</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:25:55 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1402955</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

