4.7 Article

Evaluation and Treatment of Adult Growth Hormone Deficiency: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 96, 期 6, 页码 1587-1609

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2011-0179

关键词

-

资金

  1. Eli Lilly, Co.
  2. American Diabetes Association
  3. American College of Physicians
  4. Pituitary Society
  5. Sanofi Aventis
  6. Ipsen
  7. Corcept
  8. Pfizer, Inc.
  9. Genentech, Inc.
  10. Lilly Inc.
  11. Ipsen Inc.
  12. America Neuroendocrine Society
  13. National Institutes of Health
  14. Washington State Health Department
  15. Novo Nordisk, Inc.
  16. Novartis Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim was to update The Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on Evaluation and Treatment of Adult Growth Hormone Deficiency (GHD) previously published in 2006. Consensus Process: Consensus was guided by systematic reviews of evidence and discussions through a series of conference calls and e-mails. An initial draft was prepared by the Task Force, with the help of a medical writer, and reviewed and commented on by members of The Endocrine Society. A second draft was reviewed and approved by The Endocrine Society Council. At each stage of review, the Task Force received written comments and incorporated substantive changes. Conclusions: GHD can persist from childhood or be newly acquired. Confirmation through stimulation testing is usually required unless there is a proven genetic/structural lesion persistent from childhood. GH therapy offers benefits in body composition, exercise capacity, skeletal integrity, and quality of life measures and is most likely to benefit those patients who have more severe GHD. The risks associated with GH treatment are low. GH dosing regimens should be individualized. The final decision to treat adults with GHD requires thoughtful clinical judgment with a careful evaluation of the benefits and risks specific to the individual. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96: 1587-1609, 2011)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据