By the editors of GQ and Details
Nothing's gnarlier than red, itchy spots that pop up on your neck after shaving. It's embarrassing, and (sorry) it looks amateurish. Bring the razor super-close (think: Daniel Craig and Naomie Harris in Skyfall's seductive-shave scene) with these six easy tips.
Soften the beard. Shower steam opens up your pores and softens whiskers, making them less resistant to a blade.
Exfoliate. A facial scrub will keep dead skin from clogging up your blade and lift facial hairs up so you can get a cleaner cut in fewer strokes.
Stay sharp. Blunt blades require more pressure on the skin to get the job done, which can lead to irritation. Replace your blade after every five to seven shaves or as soon as you feel it slightly tugging on your skin.
Protect skin with an oil or cream. Pick a product that contains dimethicone or a natural lubricant like coconut or argan oil to reduce drag. Gels and foams are mostly air and don't provide enough glide.
Shave with the grain. It takes longer, but shave in the direction your facial hair grows. Can't tell by looking? Rub your hand against your whiskers and shave in the direction that feels smooth, not prickly.
Moisturize. Ingredients like tea-tree oil and propolis are great natural antiseptics and help heal irritation and nicks. Look for aloe and chamomile to soothe skin and reduce any redness, and avoid products with alcohol if you have sensitive skin.
Tags: Mens Health, Men's Shaving
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Savile Row
The Masters of Tailors in Britian
CBS Sunday Morning Video: From movies stars to the royal family Savile Row has been suiting up the rich and famous for more than two and a half centuries.
Anthony Mason takes a stroll down the quiet London street considered by many to be the Mecca of men's tailoring.
CBS Sunday Morning Video: From movies stars to the royal family Savile Row has been suiting up the rich and famous for more than two and a half centuries.
Anthony Mason takes a stroll down the quiet London street considered by many to be the Mecca of men's tailoring.
Until Next Time: a' Donf
Tags: Savile Row, Mens Suits, Mens Tailoring
Monday, May 21, 2012
Prostate Cancer Screening; Limit Unnecessary Surgical Procedures
As reported by CNN AC360, Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee, was quoted regarding cancer screening recommendations "It's an inexact and somewhat inefficient test."
Today's reporting, experts recommend the science must be improved in order to prefect Prostate Cancer Screening Assessments used today. It is not stating screening should be discontinued, but that the science behind it must be more exact to prevent more false positives which typically lead to unnecessary surgical procedures.
PSA tests aren't harmful in and of themselves, but studies have shown that positive results can lead to psychological distress, unnecessary biopsies, and overtreatment.
REFERENCE ARTICLE: 2011 (Health.com) -- When billionaire investor Warren Buffett revealed last week that he has been diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer, the reaction -- including from Buffett himself -- amounted to a collective shrug.
Buffett said his doctors told him the cancer is "not remotely life-threatening or even debilitating in any meaningful way," which led some observers to wonder why the 81-year-old had bothered to get screened for the disease in the first place.
Since 2008, an independent panel of experts that advises the federal government on preventive care has discouraged the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests -- a type of blood test -- to screen for cancer in men ages 75 and up. Tumors in this population tend to be slow-growing and asymptomatic, so early detection may carry more risks than benefits, the panel concluded.
Buffett's diagnosis isn't the only sign that this recommendation hasn't sunk in. According to a research letter published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association, PSA testing rates in men over age 75 have remained steady since the panel released its guidelines in 2008.
National survey data shows that 43% of men in that age bracket underwent PSA screening in 2005. In 2010, the researchers found, 44% reported having a PSA test done -- a statistically negligible difference.
"Screening patterns couldn't have been more similar before and after," says lead researcher Scott E. Eggener, M.D., an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Chicago Medical Center.
PSA tests aren't harmful in and of themselves, but studies have shown that positive results can lead to psychological distress, unnecessary biopsies, and overtreatment.
In older men, most early-stage tumors don't require treatment because the men are likely to succumb to something else before the tumor becomes dangerous. Treatments, including surgery and radiation, may be riskier than continuing to monitor a tumor, since they carry a risk of incontinence and sexual dysfunction. (Buffet, for his part, has elected to undergo radiation.)
So why haven't screening rates budged? The researchers can only speculate, but it could be that doctors and patients simply aren't aware of the new guidelines. Another, more troubling possibility is that some prostate cancer specialists are recommending PSA tests to collect the reimbursement fee and generate business.
Eggener says neither of these scenarios is especially likely, however. The media coverage surrounding the 2008 guidelines has been hard to miss, he says, and although there may be a "subset" of specialists who are "consciously or unconsciously" overscreening and overtreating their patients, most PSA tests are ordered by primary care physicians with no financial stake in a diagnosis.
What's more likely is that doctors and patients are accustomed to viewing screening as a good thing, and are unable or unwilling to let that belief go despite all the data to the contrary. "Physicians and patients latch onto the concept of screening for cancer and catching cancers early," Eggener says.
The ongoing discussion surrounding the appropriate amount of cancer screening extends beyond prostate cancer. The panel that issued the 2008 guidelines, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), has spurred controversy in recent years by relaxing its screening recommendations for breast and cervical cancer as well.
In 2011, the task force released draft guidelines that extended its recommendation against PSA testing to men of all ages. The current trend suggests the new guidelines may go unheeded, especially since not everyone agrees that PSA tests should be universally discouraged.
Even among men in the 75-and-over bracket, Eggener says, screening might make sense for certain patients. Older men in relatively poor health probably won't benefit from early detection and treatment, he says, but that might not be true for a healthy and active 75-year-old who's likely to live long enough for a tumor to spread.
"It's very reasonable to check PSA levels, because it might save that guy's life," he says.
Tags: Prostate Cancer Screening, PSA, Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee, MD, PhD
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
New prostate cancer treatment may reduce side-effects
By Adam Brimelow
Health Correspondent, BBC News
A new technique to treat early prostate cancer may have far fewer side-effects than existing therapies, say experts. A 41-patient study in the journal Lancet Oncology suggests targeted ultrasound treatment could reduce the risk of impotence and incontinence.
Researchers say it could transform future treatment if the findings are repeated in larger studies.
The Medical Research Council (MRC), which funded the study, welcomed the results, which it said were promising.
Each year 37,000 men in the UK are diagnosed with prostate cancer.
Many face a difficult dilemma: the disease kills about 10,000 men every year, but for some it may not get worse if left untreated. Standard treatment with surgery or radiotherapy involves treating the whole prostate gland, and can harm surrounding tissue, with a serious risk of side-effects, including urinary incontinence and impotence.
Targeted treatment
Doctors at University College Hospital in London have carried out the first trial using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) aimed at small patches of cancer cells on the prostate. This was a "proof of concept" study involving 41 patients.
They used a probe, placed close to the prostate, which emits sound waves that heat the targeted cells to 80C, while causing minimal damage to surrounding nerves and muscles. Hashim Ahmed, a urological surgeon at the trust who led the study, says the results, 12 months after treatment, are very encouraging.
"We've shown in this study that focal therapy - by targeting the individual areas of cancer - can avoid the collateral damage. We've shown that nine in 10 men had no impotence and none of the men in the study had incontinence of urine."
Mr. Ahmed says the early evidence on cancer control is also very good. But he says this needs to be evaluated in much larger studies. "This could offer a transformation of the way we treat prostate cancer. It could offer a cost-effective treatment for the NHS, and offer men with early prostate cancer an opportunity to treat their disease, but with very few side-effects."
A patient on the trial, 72-year-old Robert Page, from Croydon, says his treatment, two years ago, was a great success.
"The outcome was very good," he said. "I was very pleased with the treatment and very happy with the lack of side-effects, particularly when I contrast that with what might have been the case if I'd had one of the other, alternative, treatments."
The study was funded by the Medical Research Council, the Pelican Cancer Foundation and St Peter's Trust.
Further trials
Professor Gillies McKenna, director of the Gray Institute for Radiation Oncology and Biology, a joint collaboration between the MRC and Cancer Research UK, welcomed the findings.
"If these promising results can be confirmed in a randomized controlled trial, focal therapy could soon become a reasonable treatment choice for prostate cancer alongside other proven effective therapies."
The chief executive of the Prostate Cancer Charity, Owen Sharp, also emphasized the importance of further research.
"We welcome the development of any prostate-cancer treatment which limits the possibility of damaging side-effects, such as incontinence and impotence. These early results certainly indicate that focal HIFU has the potential to achieve this in the future.
"However, we need to remember that this treatment was given to fewer than 50 men, without follow-up over a sustained period of time.
"We look forward to the results of further trials, which we hope will provide a clearer idea of whether this treatment can control cancer in the long term whilst ridding men of the fear that treating their cancer might mean losing their quality of life."
Original Post: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17726979
Tags: Mens Health, Prostate Cancer
Health Correspondent, BBC News
A new technique to treat early prostate cancer may have far fewer side-effects than existing therapies, say experts. A 41-patient study in the journal Lancet Oncology suggests targeted ultrasound treatment could reduce the risk of impotence and incontinence.
Researchers say it could transform future treatment if the findings are repeated in larger studies.
The Medical Research Council (MRC), which funded the study, welcomed the results, which it said were promising.
Each year 37,000 men in the UK are diagnosed with prostate cancer.
Many face a difficult dilemma: the disease kills about 10,000 men every year, but for some it may not get worse if left untreated. Standard treatment with surgery or radiotherapy involves treating the whole prostate gland, and can harm surrounding tissue, with a serious risk of side-effects, including urinary incontinence and impotence.
Targeted treatment
Doctors at University College Hospital in London have carried out the first trial using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) aimed at small patches of cancer cells on the prostate. This was a "proof of concept" study involving 41 patients.
They used a probe, placed close to the prostate, which emits sound waves that heat the targeted cells to 80C, while causing minimal damage to surrounding nerves and muscles. Hashim Ahmed, a urological surgeon at the trust who led the study, says the results, 12 months after treatment, are very encouraging.
"We've shown in this study that focal therapy - by targeting the individual areas of cancer - can avoid the collateral damage. We've shown that nine in 10 men had no impotence and none of the men in the study had incontinence of urine."
Mr. Ahmed says the early evidence on cancer control is also very good. But he says this needs to be evaluated in much larger studies. "This could offer a transformation of the way we treat prostate cancer. It could offer a cost-effective treatment for the NHS, and offer men with early prostate cancer an opportunity to treat their disease, but with very few side-effects."
A patient on the trial, 72-year-old Robert Page, from Croydon, says his treatment, two years ago, was a great success.
"The outcome was very good," he said. "I was very pleased with the treatment and very happy with the lack of side-effects, particularly when I contrast that with what might have been the case if I'd had one of the other, alternative, treatments."
The study was funded by the Medical Research Council, the Pelican Cancer Foundation and St Peter's Trust.
Further trials
Professor Gillies McKenna, director of the Gray Institute for Radiation Oncology and Biology, a joint collaboration between the MRC and Cancer Research UK, welcomed the findings.
"If these promising results can be confirmed in a randomized controlled trial, focal therapy could soon become a reasonable treatment choice for prostate cancer alongside other proven effective therapies."
The chief executive of the Prostate Cancer Charity, Owen Sharp, also emphasized the importance of further research.
"We welcome the development of any prostate-cancer treatment which limits the possibility of damaging side-effects, such as incontinence and impotence. These early results certainly indicate that focal HIFU has the potential to achieve this in the future.
"However, we need to remember that this treatment was given to fewer than 50 men, without follow-up over a sustained period of time.
"We look forward to the results of further trials, which we hope will provide a clearer idea of whether this treatment can control cancer in the long term whilst ridding men of the fear that treating their cancer might mean losing their quality of life."
Original Post: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17726979
Tags: Mens Health, Prostate Cancer
Friday, April 13, 2012
Federer's serve: Skill or trickery?
Fun on the advertising set for Gillette with professional tennis player Roger Federer. At the shoot, Roger Federer knocked a ball off of a staffer’s head while displaying his powerful serve. This close shave got a lot of people wondering if it’s real. Watch the incredible shot and decide for yourself.
Source: CNN
:::: Until Next Time: a' Donf ::::
Tags: Gillette, Mens Health
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Doctors call for end to 45 common medical tests, procedures
By MSNBC April 4, 2012
WASHINGTON — Old checklist for doctors: order that test, write that prescription. New checklist for doctors: first ask yourself if the patient really needs it.
Nine medical societies, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American College of Cardiology, representing nearly 375,000 physicians are challenging the widely held perception that more health care is better, releasing lists Wednesday of tests and treatments their members should no longer automatically order.
The 45 tests and procedures considered to be overused include:
Dr. Christine Cassel, president of the American Board of Internal Medicine, said the goal is to reduce wasteful spending without harming patients. She suggested some may benefit by avoiding known risks associated with medical tests, such as exposure to radiation.
"We all know there is overuse and waste in the system, so let's have the doctors take responsibility for that and look at the things that are overused," said Cassel. "We're doing this because we think we don't need to ration health care if we get rid of waste." Her group sets standards and oversees board certification for many medical specialties.
Other advocates agreed. "I am shocked, surprised, and pleased," said Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition and a breast-cancer survivor. "Shocked because ASCO has long been loath to say, 'do less.' Pleased because it appears that they are trying to follow the science, which is nice."
The recommendations come at a time when American health care is undergoing far-reaching changes. No matter what the Supreme Court decides on President Barack Obama's health overhaul, employers, lawmakers, insurers and many doctors are questioning how the United States spends far more on medical care than any other economically advanced country and still produces mediocre results overall.
The recommendation likely to stir controversy, and even revive charges of "death panels," is to not use chemotherapy and other treatments in patients with advanced solid-tumor cancers such as colorectal or lung who are in poor health and did not benefit from previous chemo.
Such treatment is widespread. At one large health maintenance organization, for instance, 49 percent of patients with a common form of lung cancer but with poor "performance status" (they were largely confined to a bed or chair and capable of only limited self-care) received chemo. Research shows, however, that it is unlikely to extend their life or improve its quality.
Similarly, many patients receive three and even four kinds of chemo after not responding to earlier rounds. Yet in the largest study of its kind, only 2 percent of lung-cancer patients responded to a third form of chemo; 0 percent responded to a fourth form. In another study, withholding fourth-line chemotherapy from patients with non-small-cell lung cancer or colorectal cancer did not shorten their lives compared to that of similar patients receiving last-ditch treatments.
ASCO therefore recommends that such very ill, weak, and non-responsive patients receive only palliative and other end-of-life care. An important exception: a cancer whose molecular fingerprint makes it vulnerable to a targeted therapy such as AstraZeneca's Iressa for non-small-cell lung cancer.
"In no way do we want to deprive a desperately-ill patient of something that might be helpful," said Schnipper. And every oncologist should continue to base medical decisions on the individual patient, he said.
"But if nature is telling us that something will not help, it is our obligation to do no harm," he added. Giving chemo to a seriously ill patient whose cancer has not responded to earlier treatment "might let grandma live another few weeks. But she is very likely to be made toxic by the chemo and suffer big time. There is a real risk it will make a patient worse."
The challenge for physicians as well as insurers will be balancing the needs of the vast majority of patients against the rare cases. Studies have shown that when very ill lung-cancer patients were given a common chemotherapy, the average survival was half that of stronger patients, but nevertheless, 3.4 months.
Finding metastasis
The recommendation that physicians not perform advanced imaging or bone scans in patients with early-stage breast or low-grade prostate cancer that is unlikely to spread also reflects research that contradicts what many patients believe.
In these patients, imaging such as PET and CT to search for metastasis does not improve detection of metastases or extend survival. Moreover, said Schnipper, "finding metastases early does not improve survival in breast cancer." But the expensive imaging ($2,500 to $5,000) does misdiagnose some harmless changes as cancer, leading to unnecessary invasive procedures or treatments that can shorten lives.
Again, there are exceptions. The most authoritative review found that 99 percent of patients with early-stage, seemingly low-risk prostate cancer do not benefit from imaging or bone scans. That suggests 1 percent might.
In breast-cancer patients who have been successfully treated, such as Shari Baker, neither the advanced imaging nor blood tests for molecules associated with tumors improve survival. (The tests do help patients treated for colorectal cancer, however.) Most recurrences are found through a physical exam or mammogram. Yet the advanced tests are routine.
"Why do doctors keep doing them?" Schnipper asks. "Most of them are aware of the evidence that these tests don't benefit patients. But in my own experience treating breast-cancer patients, sometimes when I go through the explanations of how these things don't help a patient will say, 'but it will help me sleep at night.' And I do it."
Dr. James Fasules of the American College of Cardiology said the goal is to begin changing attitudes among patients and doctors.
"We kind of have a general feeling that if you don't get a test, you haven't been cared for well," said Fasules. "That has permeated American culture now." The new advice isn't meant to override a doctor's judgment, Fasules added, but to inform and support decisions.
Bioethicist Art Caplan, Ph.D. says there is a need for doctors to initiate more discussion about testing with their patients.
"A lot of testing now done in medicine involves tests that are not especially accurate, tests done solely to protect against the fear of lawsuit and due to hyping of tests by manufacturers, providers and hospitals" says Caplan, professor of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, and msnbc.com contributor. "Patients need more information on the pros and cons of testing and screening if they are to make truly informed choices consistent with their personal values. Hopefully, this initiative will get that discussion moving."
The recommendations will be circulated to consumers and doctors by a coalition calling itself Choosing Wisely, which includes employer groups, unions, AARP and Consumer Reports. Neither the insurance industry nor the federal government was involved in process.
Each of the nine medical societies submitted five tests or treatments they viewed as overused. Eight other medical societies are developing additional recommendations, Cassel said.
The medical societies don't have any power of enforcement, and fear of malpractice lawsuits may well prompt many doctors to keep ordering as many tests as ever.
Insurers will certainly take a close look at the recommendations, but what they do may be limited. That's because most of the questionable tests and treatments in the lists don't particularly stand out in the avalanche of bills processed daily by insurance companies.
Take a recommendation for no annual EKGs for low-risk patients with no heart symptoms. Dr. John Santa, director of the Consumer Reports Health Ratings Center, said he used to routinely order EKG's when he was a general adult medicine practitioner. EKGs cost $50 to $60. A medical assistant would do the tests, and it would take Santa just a couple of minutes to read them. Yet 2 percent to 3 percent of his income came from EKGs, enough to make a difference in a tight year.
"It's very difficult for an insurance company to tell the difference when an EKG is being used as a diagnostic tool and when it is being used as a screening test," said Santa. "It would probably cause more trouble for insurance companies."
The medical groups that participated are: American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Cardiology, American College of Physicians, American College of Radiology, American Gastroenterological Association, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Nephrology, and American Society of Nuclear Cardiology.
Read More Doctors call for end to 45 common medical tests, procedures
::::Until Next Time: à Donf::::
Tags: Medical, Evaluation and Diagnostic Testing, Oncology
WASHINGTON — Old checklist for doctors: order that test, write that prescription. New checklist for doctors: first ask yourself if the patient really needs it.
Nine medical societies, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American College of Cardiology, representing nearly 375,000 physicians are challenging the widely held perception that more health care is better, releasing lists Wednesday of tests and treatments their members should no longer automatically order.
The 45 tests and procedures considered to be overused include:
Repeat colonoscopies within 10 years of a first testLink: Complete List of "Five Things Physicians and Patients Should Question" regarding medical evaluation and diagnostic assessment.
Early imaging for most back pain
Brain scans for patients who fainted but didn't have seizures
Antibiotics for mild- to-moderate sinusitis unless symptoms last for seven or more days or worsen
Stress cardiac imaging or advanced non-invasive imaging in the initial evaluation of patients without cardiac symptoms unless high-risk markers are present
PAP smears on women younger than 21 or who have had a hysterectomy for a non-cancer disease
Advanced imaging or bone scans in patients with early-stage breast or low-grade prostate cancer
Bone scan screening for osteoporosis in women younger than 65 or men younger than 70 with no risk factors
Routine cancer screening on dialysis patients with limited life expectancies
Chemotherapy for sickest cancer patients
Dr. Christine Cassel, president of the American Board of Internal Medicine, said the goal is to reduce wasteful spending without harming patients. She suggested some may benefit by avoiding known risks associated with medical tests, such as exposure to radiation.
"We all know there is overuse and waste in the system, so let's have the doctors take responsibility for that and look at the things that are overused," said Cassel. "We're doing this because we think we don't need to ration health care if we get rid of waste." Her group sets standards and oversees board certification for many medical specialties.
Other advocates agreed. "I am shocked, surprised, and pleased," said Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition and a breast-cancer survivor. "Shocked because ASCO has long been loath to say, 'do less.' Pleased because it appears that they are trying to follow the science, which is nice."
The recommendations come at a time when American health care is undergoing far-reaching changes. No matter what the Supreme Court decides on President Barack Obama's health overhaul, employers, lawmakers, insurers and many doctors are questioning how the United States spends far more on medical care than any other economically advanced country and still produces mediocre results overall.
The recommendation likely to stir controversy, and even revive charges of "death panels," is to not use chemotherapy and other treatments in patients with advanced solid-tumor cancers such as colorectal or lung who are in poor health and did not benefit from previous chemo.
Such treatment is widespread. At one large health maintenance organization, for instance, 49 percent of patients with a common form of lung cancer but with poor "performance status" (they were largely confined to a bed or chair and capable of only limited self-care) received chemo. Research shows, however, that it is unlikely to extend their life or improve its quality.
Similarly, many patients receive three and even four kinds of chemo after not responding to earlier rounds. Yet in the largest study of its kind, only 2 percent of lung-cancer patients responded to a third form of chemo; 0 percent responded to a fourth form. In another study, withholding fourth-line chemotherapy from patients with non-small-cell lung cancer or colorectal cancer did not shorten their lives compared to that of similar patients receiving last-ditch treatments.
ASCO therefore recommends that such very ill, weak, and non-responsive patients receive only palliative and other end-of-life care. An important exception: a cancer whose molecular fingerprint makes it vulnerable to a targeted therapy such as AstraZeneca's Iressa for non-small-cell lung cancer.
"In no way do we want to deprive a desperately-ill patient of something that might be helpful," said Schnipper. And every oncologist should continue to base medical decisions on the individual patient, he said.
"But if nature is telling us that something will not help, it is our obligation to do no harm," he added. Giving chemo to a seriously ill patient whose cancer has not responded to earlier treatment "might let grandma live another few weeks. But she is very likely to be made toxic by the chemo and suffer big time. There is a real risk it will make a patient worse."
The challenge for physicians as well as insurers will be balancing the needs of the vast majority of patients against the rare cases. Studies have shown that when very ill lung-cancer patients were given a common chemotherapy, the average survival was half that of stronger patients, but nevertheless, 3.4 months.
Finding metastasis
The recommendation that physicians not perform advanced imaging or bone scans in patients with early-stage breast or low-grade prostate cancer that is unlikely to spread also reflects research that contradicts what many patients believe.
In these patients, imaging such as PET and CT to search for metastasis does not improve detection of metastases or extend survival. Moreover, said Schnipper, "finding metastases early does not improve survival in breast cancer." But the expensive imaging ($2,500 to $5,000) does misdiagnose some harmless changes as cancer, leading to unnecessary invasive procedures or treatments that can shorten lives.
Again, there are exceptions. The most authoritative review found that 99 percent of patients with early-stage, seemingly low-risk prostate cancer do not benefit from imaging or bone scans. That suggests 1 percent might.
In breast-cancer patients who have been successfully treated, such as Shari Baker, neither the advanced imaging nor blood tests for molecules associated with tumors improve survival. (The tests do help patients treated for colorectal cancer, however.) Most recurrences are found through a physical exam or mammogram. Yet the advanced tests are routine.
"Why do doctors keep doing them?" Schnipper asks. "Most of them are aware of the evidence that these tests don't benefit patients. But in my own experience treating breast-cancer patients, sometimes when I go through the explanations of how these things don't help a patient will say, 'but it will help me sleep at night.' And I do it."
Dr. James Fasules of the American College of Cardiology said the goal is to begin changing attitudes among patients and doctors.
"We kind of have a general feeling that if you don't get a test, you haven't been cared for well," said Fasules. "That has permeated American culture now." The new advice isn't meant to override a doctor's judgment, Fasules added, but to inform and support decisions.
Bioethicist Art Caplan, Ph.D. says there is a need for doctors to initiate more discussion about testing with their patients.
"A lot of testing now done in medicine involves tests that are not especially accurate, tests done solely to protect against the fear of lawsuit and due to hyping of tests by manufacturers, providers and hospitals" says Caplan, professor of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, and msnbc.com contributor. "Patients need more information on the pros and cons of testing and screening if they are to make truly informed choices consistent with their personal values. Hopefully, this initiative will get that discussion moving."
The recommendations will be circulated to consumers and doctors by a coalition calling itself Choosing Wisely, which includes employer groups, unions, AARP and Consumer Reports. Neither the insurance industry nor the federal government was involved in process.
Each of the nine medical societies submitted five tests or treatments they viewed as overused. Eight other medical societies are developing additional recommendations, Cassel said.
The medical societies don't have any power of enforcement, and fear of malpractice lawsuits may well prompt many doctors to keep ordering as many tests as ever.
Insurers will certainly take a close look at the recommendations, but what they do may be limited. That's because most of the questionable tests and treatments in the lists don't particularly stand out in the avalanche of bills processed daily by insurance companies.
Take a recommendation for no annual EKGs for low-risk patients with no heart symptoms. Dr. John Santa, director of the Consumer Reports Health Ratings Center, said he used to routinely order EKG's when he was a general adult medicine practitioner. EKGs cost $50 to $60. A medical assistant would do the tests, and it would take Santa just a couple of minutes to read them. Yet 2 percent to 3 percent of his income came from EKGs, enough to make a difference in a tight year.
"It's very difficult for an insurance company to tell the difference when an EKG is being used as a diagnostic tool and when it is being used as a screening test," said Santa. "It would probably cause more trouble for insurance companies."
The medical groups that participated are: American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Cardiology, American College of Physicians, American College of Radiology, American Gastroenterological Association, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Nephrology, and American Society of Nuclear Cardiology.
Read More Doctors call for end to 45 common medical tests, procedures
::::Until Next Time: à Donf::::
Tags: Medical, Evaluation and Diagnostic Testing, Oncology
Friday, March 23, 2012
Gillette's World Shave 5 Weeks Around the World
Until Next Time: a' Donf
Tags: Men, Mens Health, The Art of Shaving
Friday, March 16, 2012
PTSD Defense for US Military Member Accused in 16 Afghanistan Murders
One Mind for Research
Until Next Time: a’Donf
Tags: PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury, 16 Afghanistan Murders
US Military GI Highly Decorated Accused of 16 Afghanistan Murders
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Until Next Time: a' DonfMonday, March 12, 2012
Are You Confused About Condoms?
Not like this, people.
On February 17, 2012, the Journal on Sexual Health, a interdisciplinary journal of sexual health, published new research outlining condom use errors, and problems.
The Planned Parenthood link at the bottom is great for Condom Use 101 Education, and I learned that some things have not changed. No, we still do not need a prescription for condoms, they are still low in price, and sometimes they are free. Other concrete statistics provided were equally useful.
Gothamist has written such a great article to bring attention to the new research it begged to be reposted here.
Doing It Wrong: Condoms Still Confusing To Many Americans
Source: Re-post: By Garth Johnston [Gothamist Feb 28, 2012]
Do we all need remedial sex ed. classes?
According to a new meta-report on condom usage in the journal Sexual Health a lot of people are still seriously struggling with the basics. For instance 23.4 percent of men and 25.3 percent of women in one American study reported that they completely unroll a condom before putting it on. Meanwhile, a quirky company has gone and decided that what condoms really need are QR codes so you let the world know you got lucky. Because why not pause to check-in before sex?
The whole report out of the Kinsey Institute impressively goes through the many, many ways that people the world over still struggle with condoms (though there is far more data out of the developed world on the matter). So, what are people doing wrong?
Common errors include: incomplete use (i.e. late application of condoms after intercourse began, early removal of condom followed by unprotected intercourse), not leaving space at the tip, not squeezing air from the tip before use, putting the condom on inside out and having to flip it over, not using water-based lubricant and incorrect withdrawal.
Because of people's misinformation on how to use condoms, common problems seen include breakage, leakage, erection problems while putting the rubbers on and during intercourse and, naturally, problems with "the fit or feel of condoms."
Among the problems the study implies tangentially is that many of the groups who seem to have the most problems are low-income. For instance that terrifying unrolled condom statistic? That comes from a study of more than 1,000 predominately low-income people visiting a clinic. When interviewing University undergraduates the number of early rollers dropped down to 2.1 percent.
So, how should you put on a condom? Let's ask Planned Parenthood. Because, clearly, the movies are not the answer.
Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.
Until Next Time: a'Donf
Tags: Mens Health, Sexual Health, Sex and Relationships
Monday, February 27, 2012
3 Meds with the Craziest Side Effects Ever -
MEN'S HEALTH Report: Sure, medicine is supposed to make you feel better, but before you go popping prescription pills, you may want to look into their side effects.
Patients who are taking the new anti-clotting medication Pradaxa have a 33 percent higher risk of experiencing vascular complications such as a heart attack or acute coronary syndrome, says a recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Yet even though there was an increased risk for experiencing a heart attack, the authors noted that the meta-analysis found that the overall rate of death was actually lower for those on Praxada, 4.83 percent versus 5.02 percent in the control groups.
And that's not the only pill with some scary side effects. Check out these popular medications, some of the side effects are bizarre, to say the least.
Ambien
Ambien (zolpidem tartrate) is commonly prescribed to treat insomnia. But upon closer inspection, it appears this little pill does much more than help the sleep-deprived catch some Zs. According to early case studies published in the journal Sleep Medicine, patients who were on Ambien began developing odd habits such as "sleep eating," some having no memory of their odd behavior upon waking.
Yet as time passed (and the side effects continued to worsen), the FDA slapped this on Ambien's Medication Guide: "After taking AMBIEN, you may get up out of bed while not being fully awake and do an activity that you do not know you are doing. The next morning, you may not remember that you did anything during the night."
And as for those activities referenced above that you "may not remember," that list was also printed on
More 3 Meds with the Craziest Side Effects Ever -
:::: Until Next Time: à Donf ::::
Patients who are taking the new anti-clotting medication Pradaxa have a 33 percent higher risk of experiencing vascular complications such as a heart attack or acute coronary syndrome, says a recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Yet even though there was an increased risk for experiencing a heart attack, the authors noted that the meta-analysis found that the overall rate of death was actually lower for those on Praxada, 4.83 percent versus 5.02 percent in the control groups.
And that's not the only pill with some scary side effects. Check out these popular medications, some of the side effects are bizarre, to say the least.
Ambien
Ambien (zolpidem tartrate) is commonly prescribed to treat insomnia. But upon closer inspection, it appears this little pill does much more than help the sleep-deprived catch some Zs. According to early case studies published in the journal Sleep Medicine, patients who were on Ambien began developing odd habits such as "sleep eating," some having no memory of their odd behavior upon waking.
Yet as time passed (and the side effects continued to worsen), the FDA slapped this on Ambien's Medication Guide: "After taking AMBIEN, you may get up out of bed while not being fully awake and do an activity that you do not know you are doing. The next morning, you may not remember that you did anything during the night."
And as for those activities referenced above that you "may not remember," that list was also printed on
More 3 Meds with the Craziest Side Effects Ever -
:::: Until Next Time: à Donf ::::
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)









