<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: harms</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 'harms'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22harms%22&t=%22harms%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:37:18 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>“Just In Case” Heart Tests: Can They Do More Harm Than Good?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4337937&amp;cid=t_111301_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2F%25e2%2580%259cjust-in-case%25e2%2580%259d-heart-tests-can-they-do-more-harm-than-good%2F2011.01.12</link>
            <description>Here’s an important equation that all of us &amp;#8212; doctors include &amp;#8212; should know about healthcare, but don’t:
More ≠ Better
“More does not equal better” applies to diagnostic procedures, screening tests meant to identify problems before they appear, medications, dietary supplements, and just about every aspect of medicine.
That scenario is spelled out in alarming detail in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Clinicians at the Cleveland Clinic describe the case of a 52-year-old woman who went to her community hospital because she had been having chest pain for two days. She wasn’t having symptoms of a heart attack, such as shortness of breath, unexplained nausea, or a cold sweat, and her electrocardiogram and other tests were fine. The woman’s doctors concluded that her ...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4337937</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:00:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4337937</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Reassuring Patients About CT Scans And Radiation Risks</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4275325&amp;cid=t_111301_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Freassuring-patients-about-ct-scans-and-radiation-risks%2F2010.12.20</link>
            <description>Emergency patients with acute abdominal pain feel more confident about medical diagnoses when a doctor has ordered a computed tomography (CT) scan, and nearly three-quarters of patients underestimate the radiation risk posed by this test, reports the Annals of Emergency Medicine.
&amp;#8220;Patients with abdominal pain are four times more confident in an exam that includes imaging than in an exam that has no testing,&amp;#8221; said the paper&amp;#8217;s lead author. &amp;#8220;Most of the patients in our study had little understanding of the amount of radiation delivered by one CT scan, never mind several over the course of a lifetime. Many of the patients did not recall earlier CT scans, even though they were listed in electronic medical records.&amp;#8221;
Researchers surveyed 1,168 patients with non-traum...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4275325</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 20 Dec 2010 22:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4275325</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>New Recommendations For Vitamin D</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4214107&amp;cid=t_111301_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fnew-recommendations-for-vitamin-d%2F2010.11.30</link>
            <description>Vitamin D has been talked about as the vitamin — the one that might help fend off everything from cancer to heart disease to autoimmune disorders, if only we were to get enough of it.
“Whoa!” is the message from a committee of experts assembled by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to update recommendations for vitamin D (and for calcium).
The IOM committee’s report, released this morning, says evidence for many of  the health claims for vitamin D is “inconsistent and/or conflicting or did not demonstrate causality.” The exception is the vitamin’s well-documented (and noncontroversial) benefits on bone growth and maintenance.
The IOM panel’s report also says most North Americans (Canadians as well as Americans) have more than enough vitamin D in their blood to a...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4214107</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:00:45 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4214107</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Unscientific Medicine: What’s The Harm?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4074068&amp;cid=t_111301_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Funscientific-medicine-what%25e2%2580%2599s-the-harm%2F2010.10.14</link>
            <description>Any promoter of science-based medicine often faces the question: &amp;#8220;What’s the harm?&amp;#8221; What is the harm if people try treatment modalities that are not based upon good science, that are anecdotal, or provide only a placebo benefit? There are generally two premises to this question. The first is that most “alternative” placebo interventions are directly harmless. The second is that direct harm is the only type worth considering. Both of these premises are wrong.
The pages of Science Based Medicine (SBM) are filled with accounts of direct harm from unscientific treatments: Argyria from colloidal silver, death from chelation therapy, infection or other complications from acupuncture, burns from ear candleing, stroke from chiropractic neck manipulation &amp;#8212; the list goes on. ...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4074068</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:00:50 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4074068</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Doctors And “Alarm Fatigue”: Potential For Patient Harm?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3876648&amp;cid=t_111301_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fdoctors-and-alarm-fatigue-potential-for-patient-harm%2F2010.08.17</link>
            <description>The hospital is never a quiet place. Walk through the wards on a typical day and you’ll hear a cacophony of alarms, bells, and other tones coming from both computers and medical equipment.
American Medical News recently discussed so-called “alarm fatigue.” They cite a study showing find that “16,934 alarms sounded in [a medical] unit during an 18-day period.” That’s astounding, and for those who are wondering, that’s about 40 alarms an hour.
It’s not surprising that doctors become desensitized to these alarms, and that has potential to harm patients, as physicians may miss legitimate, emergent findings. (more&amp;#8230;)

			
			*This blog post was originally published at KevinMD.com* (Source: Better Health)</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3876648</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 01:00:48 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3876648</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Minnesotans Get More Lower-Back MRIs: Why?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3794772&amp;cid=t_111301_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fminnesotans-get-more-lower-back-mris-why%2F2010.07.27</link>
            <description>Kudos to Christopher Snowbeck and the St. Paul Pioneer Press for digging into new Medicare data to report that the state the newspaper serves is out of whack with the rest of the country in how many expensive MRI scans are done on Minnesotans&amp;#8217; bad backs.
Snowbeck artfully captures the predictable rationalization and defensive responses coming from locals who don&amp;#8217;t like what the data suggest. Because what they suggest is overuse leading to overtreatment. So here&amp;#8217;s one attempt a provider makes to deflect the data:
&amp;#8220;The Medicare billing/claims data, which this report is generated from, would not capture conversations between a patient and provider that may have addressed alternative therapies for lower back pain,&amp;#8221; said Robert Prevost, a spokesman for North Memor...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3794772</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:00:39 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3794772</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Is a Digital Lifestyle a Deadly One?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2005728&amp;cid=t_111301_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2008%2F12%2F02%2Fis-a-digital-lifestyle-a-deadly-one%2F</link>
            <description>New research suggest what many have long suspected &amp;#8212; this digital lifestyle we&amp;#8217;re leading may also be a more deadly one.
	Analyzing 173 studies conducted since 1980, researchers discovered that three quarters of them found that increased media viewing (mostly TV) was associated with more negative health outcomes:
	
The studies offered strong evidence that children who get more media exposure are more likely to become obese, start smoking and begin earlier sexual activity than those who spend less time in front of a screen, the researchers said.
	Studies also indicated more media exposure also was linked to drug and alcohol use and poorer school performance, while the evidence was less clear about an association with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, they added.

	One ke...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2005728</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:38:53 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2005728</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Can Loneliness Kill You?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1779197&amp;cid=t_111301_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2008%2F09%2F09%2Fcan-loneliness-kill-you%2F</link>
            <description>Well, maybe not kill you, but it can definitely negatively impact your health.
	Last week, we reported on how loneliness can actually harm your health. We&amp;#8217;ve long known how couples seem to enjoy a health advantage over those who are single. But those health advantages may diminish over time. 
	But just as obesity, lack of exercise, or smoking will eventually catch up to you, the authors of a new book suggest that loneliness is an often-overlooked risk factor for health issues:
	
 Loneliness leads to higher rises in morning levels of the stress hormone cortisol, altered gene expression in immune cells, poorer immune function, higher blood pressure and an increased level of depression.
	Loneliness also is related to difficulty getting a deep sleep and a faster progression of Alzheimer...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1779197</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:21:54 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1779197</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Smoking harms the aorta</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=658880&amp;cid=t_111301_87_f&amp;fid=34866&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thecardioblog.com%2F2007%2F06%2F04%2Fsmoking-harms-the-aorta%2F</link>
            <description>Filed under: Prevention, Smoking, Women Heart Health, Men Heart Health, Aging Heart HealthOne of the perks of writing for That's Fit and The Cardio Blog is that every single day I am reminded of the health consequences of my bad habits. Just hearing -- again, and again, and again -- exactly how carrying extra weight or eating those horribly addictive Oreos that used to sit in my snack cupboard, or skipping my daily walk to watch reruns of The Sopranos effects my health has truly helped me finally quit several bad habits and create healthier new ones. I'm telling you this because I am going to write yet another post about smoking and how bad it is for you. If you're a smoker, you know smoking is bad for you and hearing that it's bad for you may annoy you or make you skip this post altogethe...</description>
            <author>The Cardio Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=658880</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2007 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">658880</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>FDA needs more time with Wyeth kidney cancer drug</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=536614&amp;cid=t_111301_87_f&amp;fid=34865&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thecancerblog.com%2F2007%2F04%2F11%2Ffda-needs-more-time-with-wyeth-kidney-cancer-drug%2F</link>
            <description>Filed under: Drug, Research, Daily newsThe Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will take an additional three months to review Wyeth's kidney cancer drug Torisel -- the first of five new medications the company plans to introduce this year.The FDA needs more time to investigate data on tumor growth in patients taking Torisel. If all goes well, the drug will be one of only three to effectively hold off incurable kidney cancer. The other two drugs are Pfizer's Sutent and Bayer AG's Nexavar.Robert Ruffolo, president of Wyeth Research, says he is encouraged by the review process so far. And he is optimistic about launching the product in late 2007.Studies show Torisel, which will cost patients about $30,000 per year, prolonged survival by 50 percent in those faring poorly with kidney cancer. The...</description>
            <author>The Cancer Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=536614</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">536614</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

