Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Leon Gordis is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Leon Gordis.


Annals of Internal Medicine | 2009

Aspirin for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Ned Calonge; Diana B. Petitti; Thomas G. DeWitt; Leon Gordis; Kimberly D. Gregory; Russell Harris; George Isham; Michael L. LeFevre; Carol Loveland-Cherry; Lucy N. Marion; Virginia A. Moyer; Judith K. Ockene; George F. Sawaya; Albert L. Siu; Steven M. Teutsch; Barbara P. Yawn

DESCRIPTION Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation about the use of aspirin for the prevention of coronary heart disease. METHODS Review of the literature since 2002, focusing on new evidence on the benefits and harms of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction and stroke. The new evidence was reviewed and synthesized according to sex. RECOMMENDATIONS Encourage men age 45 to 79 years to use aspirin when the potential benefit of a reduction in myocardial infarctions outweighs the potential harm of an increase in gastrointestinal hemorrhage. (A recommendation) Encourage women age 55 to 79 years to use aspirin when the potential benefit of a reduction in ischemic strokes outweighs the potential harm of an increase in gastrointestinal hemorrhage. (A recommendation) Evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of aspirin for cardiovascular disease prevention in men and women 80 years or older. (I statement) Do not encourage aspirin use for cardiovascular disease prevention in women younger than 55 years and in men younger than 45 years. (D recommendation).


Cancer | 1985

Diet and other risk factors for cancer of the pancreas

Ellen B. Gold; Leon Gordis; Marie D. Diener; Raymond Seltser; John K. Boitnott; Turner E. Bynum; David F. Hutcheon

The findings of a case‐control study of cancer of the pancreas, which was conducted in the Baltimore metropolitan area, are reported. Two hundred one patients with pancreatic cancer were matched on age (±5 years), race, and sex to hospital and non‐hospital controls, the latter selected by random‐digit‐dialing (RDD). All subjects were interviewed regarding diet, beverage consumption, occupational and environmental exposures, and medical and surgical history. Significantly decreased risks were associated with consumption of raw fruits and vegetables and diet soda, and significantly increased risks were associated with consumption of white bread when cases were compared with hospital and RDD controls. A significantly reduced risk was associated with consumption of wine when cases were compared to RDD controls. Risk ratios for consumption of coffee were not significantly different from one, although there appeared to be a dose‐response relationship in women. A moderate but statistically nonsignificant increase in relative odds was found for cigarette smoking, and cessation of smoking was associated with a marked reduction in risk. No significant associations were found with particular occupational exposures. Tonsillectomy was associated with a significantly reduced risk, a finding that has been observed for other cancers as well. The current evidence indicates that pancreatic cancer is likely to result from a complex interaction of factors and suggests that the study of its etiology requires a multidisciplinary approach involving both laboratory and epidemiologic components.


Annals of Internal Medicine | 2007

Screening for chlamydial infection: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement

Ned Calonge; Diana B. Petitti; Thomas G. DeWitt; Leon Gordis; Kimberly D. Gregory; Russell Harris; Kenneth W. Kizer; Michael L. LeFevre; Carol Loveland-Cherry; Lucy N. Marion; Virginia A. Moyer; Judith K. Ockene; George F. Sawaya; Albert L. Siu; Steven M. Teutsch; Barbara P. Yawn

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) makes recommendations about preventive care services for patients without recognized signs or symptoms of the target condition. The USPSTF bases its recommendations on a systematic review of the evidence of the benefits and harms and an assessment of the net benefit of the service. The USPSTF recognizes that clinical or policy decisions involve more considerations than this body of evidence alone. Clinicians and policymakers should understand the evidence but individualize decision making to the specific patient or situation. Summary of Recommendation and Evidence The USPSTF recommends screening for chlamydial infection for all sexually active nonpregnant young women age 24 years or younger and older nonpregnant women who are at increased risk (Figure). This is a grade A recommendation. The USPSTF recommends screening for chlamydial infection for all pregnant women age 24 years or younger and for older pregnant women who are at increased risk (Figure). This is a grade B recommendation. The USPSTF recommends against routinely screening for chlamydial infection for women age 25 years or older, regardless of whether they are pregnant, if they are not at increased risk (Figure). This is a grade C recommendation. The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for chlamydial infection for men (Figure). This is an I statement. See Table 1 for a description of the USPSTF grades and Table 2 for a description of the USPSTF classification of levels of certainty regarding net benefit. Both are also available at www.annals.org. Figure. Screening for chlamydial infection. For a summary of the evidence systematically reviewed in making these recommendations, the full recommendation statement, and supporting documents, please go to www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov. *Chlamydial infection results in few sequelae in men. Therefore, the major benefit of screening men would be to reduce the likelihood that infected and untreated men would pass the infection to sexual partners. There is no evidence that screening men reduces the long-term consequences of chlamydial infection in women. Because of this lack of evidence, the USPSTF could not assess the balance of benefits and harms and concluded that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routinely screening men. Information from reference 1. Table 1. What the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Grades Mean and Suggestions for Practice* Table 2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Levels of Certainty Regarding Net Benefit See the Clinical Considerations section for discussion of assessing risk for chlamydial infection in women and suggestions for practice regarding screening for men. Rationale Importance Chlamydial infection is the most common sexually transmitted bacterial infection in the United States. In women, genital chlamydial infection may result in urethritis, cervicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and chronic pelvic pain. Chlamydial infection during pregnancy is related to adverse pregnancy outcomes, including miscarriage, premature rupture of membranes, preterm labor, low birth weight, and infant mortality. Detection The USPSTF found fair evidence that nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) can identify chlamydial infection in asymptomatic men and women, including asymptomatic pregnant women, with high test specificity. In low-prevalence populations, however, a positive test result is more likely to be false positive than true positive, even with the most accurate tests available. Benefits of Detection and Early Intervention Nonpregnant Women at Increased Risk There is good evidence that screening for chlamydial infection in nonpregnant women who are at increased risk can reduce the incidence of PID. The USPSTF concluded that the benefits of screening nonpregnant women at increased risk are substantial. Pregnant Women at Increased Risk There are no studies evaluating the effectiveness of screening for chlamydial infection in pregnant women who are at increased risk. The USPSTF, however, found that 1) screening identifies infection in asymptomatic pregnant women, 2) there is a relatively high prevalence of infection among pregnant women who are at increased risk, and 3) there is fair evidence of improved pregnancy and birth outcomes for women who are treated for chlamydial infection. The USPSTF concluded that the benefits of screening pregnant women who are at increased risk are substantial. Women Not at Increased Risk The USPSTF identified no studies documenting the benefits of screening women, including pregnant women, who are not at increased risk for chlamydial infection. While recognizing the potential benefit to women identified through screening, the USPSTF concluded that the overall benefit of screening would be small, given the low prevalence of infection among women not at increased risk. Men While concluding that the direct benefit of screening in men was likely to be small, the USPSTF noted that screening for chlamydial infection in men may be beneficial if it were to lead to a decreased incidence of chlamydial infection in women. The USPSTF did not, however, find evidence to support this outcome and therefore concluded that the benefits of screening men are unknown. The USPSTF identified this as a critical gap in the evidence. Harms of Detection and Early Treatment The USPSTF concluded that the harms of screening for chlamydial infection are small, although few studies have been published on this subject. Potential harms include anxiety and relationship problems arising from false-positive results and overtreatment. The USPSTF identified the lack of evidence related to potential harms of screening as a gap in the evidence.The USPSTF reached the following conclusions: For nonpregnant women at increased risk, the certainty is high that the benefits of screening for chlamydial infection substantially outweigh the harms. This is a grade A recommendation. For pregnant women at increased risk, the certainty is moderate that the benefits substantially outweigh the harms of screening for chlamydial infection. This is a grade B recommendation. For women not at increased risk (including pregnant women not at increased risk), the certainty is moderate that the benefits outweigh the harms of screening to only a small degree. There may be considerations that support screening an individual patient. This is a grade C recommendation. For men, the benefits of screening are not known; thus, the USPSTF could not determine the balance of benefits and harms of screening men for chlamydial infection. This is an I statement. Clinical Considerations Patient Population under Consideration These recommendations target all sexually active individuals, including adolescents and pregnant women. Assessment of Risk All sexually active women 24 years of age or younger, including adolescents, are at increased risk for chlamydial infection. In addition to sexual activity and age, other risk factors for chlamydial infection include a history of chlamydial or other sexually transmitted infection, new or multiple sexual partners, inconsistent condom use, and exchanging sex for money or drugs. Risk factors for pregnant women are the same as for nonpregnant women. Prevalence of chlamydial infection varies widely among patient populations. African-American and Hispanic women have a higher prevalence of infection than the general population in many communities and settings. Among men and women, increased prevalence rates are also found in incarcerated populations, military recruits, and patients at public sexually transmitted infection clinics. Screening Tests Nucleic acid amplification tests have high specificity and sensitivity when used as screening tests for chlamydial infection. Nucleic acid amplification tests can be used with urine and vaginal swabs, enabling screening when a pelvic examination is not performed. Treatment Appropriate treatment of chlamydial infection has been outlined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (www.cdc.gov/std/treatment). In its 2006 sexually transmitted disease treatment guidelines, the CDC recommends that chlamydia infection be treated with 1 g of azithromycin in a single oral dose or with oral doxycycline, 100 mg twice daily for 7 days. Pregnant women with chlamydial infection may be treated with 1 g of azithromycin in a single oral dose or amoxicillin, 500 mg orally 3 times daily for 7 days (1). Because the CDC updates these recommendations regularly, clinicians are encouraged to access the CDC Web site (www.cdc.gov/std/treatment) to obtain the most up-to-date information. To prevent recurrent transmission, clinicians should ensure that all sexual partners of infected individuals are tested and treated if infected, or treated presumptively. Screening Intervals Screening pregnant women who are at increased risk for chlamydial infection is recommended at the first prenatal visit. For pregnant women who remain at increased risk and for those who acquire a new risk factor, such as a new sexual partner, a screening should be conducted during the third trimester. The optimal interval for screening for nonpregnant women is unknown. The CDC recommends at least annual screening for women at increased risk (1). Suggestions for Practice with regard to Insufficient Evidence on Screening in Men The USPSTF concluded that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms related to screening men for chlamydial infection. Specifically, the USPSTF did not find evidence that screening programs that target men result in a decreased incidence of infection in women. The USPSTF notes that programs that screen men as a means of reducing transmission to women are not common practice, that primary care clinicians can institute screening in men, that the costs of ad


Pediatrics | 2009

Screening and Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder in Children and Adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Mary B. Barton; Ned Calonge; Diana B. Petitt; Thomas G. DeWitt; Allen J. Dietrich; Leon Gordis; Kimberly D. Gregory; Russell Harris; George Isham; Michael L. LeFevre; Rosanne M. Leipzig; Carol Loveland-Cherry; Lucy N. Marion; Virginia A. Moyer; Judith K. Ockene; George F. Sawaya; Barbara P. Yawn

DESCRIPTION. This is an update of the 2002 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation on screening for child and adolescent major depressive disorder. METHODS. The US Preventive Services Task Force weighed the benefits and harms of screening and treatment for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents, incorporating new evidence addressing gaps in the 2002 recommendation statement. Evidence examined included the benefits and harms of screening, the accuracy of primary care–feasible screening tests, and the benefits and risks of treating depression by using psychotherapy and/or medications in patients aged 7 to 18 years. RECOMMENDATIONS. Screen adolescents (12–18 years of age) for major depressive disorder when systems are in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral or interpersonal), and follow-up (B recommendation). Evidence is insufficient to warrant a recommendation to screen children (7–11 years of age) for major depressive disorder (I statement).


Annals of Internal Medicine | 2008

Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement

Ned Calonge; Diana B. Petitti; Thomas G. DeWitt; Allen J. Dietrich; Leon Gordis; Kimberly D. Gregory; Russell Harris; George Isham; Rosanne M. Leipzig; Michael L. LeFevre; Carol Loveland-Cherry; Lucy N. Marion; Virginia A. Moyer; Judith K. Ockene; George F. Sawaya; Barbara P. Yawn

DESCRIPTION Updated U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation about screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults. METHODS To estimate the balance of benefits and harms of screening, the USPSTF updated its 2003 evidence review, adding evidence from new trials as well as updates on earlier studies. The review for this current recommendation focused on evidence that early treatment prevented long-term adverse outcomes of diabetes, including cardiovascular events, visual impairment, renal failure, and amputation. RECOMMENDATIONS Screen for type 2 diabetes in asymptomatic adults with sustained blood pressure (either treated or untreated) greater than 135/80 mm Hg. (B recommendation) Current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening in asymptomatic adults with blood pressure of 135/80 mm Hg or lower. (I statement).


Medical Care | 1969

The Inaccuracy in Using Interviews to Estimate Patient Reliability in Taking Medications at Home

Leon Gordis; Milton Markowitz; Abraham M. Lilienfeld

AN IMPORTANT PART of the medical care of many chronically-ill patients is self-administration of oral medications at home over a long period of time. Many improvements in the care available for such patients rest in the development of new pharmacologic agents more effective and less toxic than their predecessors. As each new agent is developed, however, it must be submitted to clinical trials comparing it in effectiveness and toxicity with other drugs already in use. Such trials comparing several drugs presume that the patients assigned to receive the drugs being tested actually take their medications as prescribed. It is known, however, that patients vary


The New England Journal of Medicine | 1973

Effectiveness of comprehensive-care programs in preventing rheumatic fever

Leon Gordis

Abstract Four inner-city comprehensive-care programs in Baltimore were evaluated by study of their effect on incidence of rheumatic fever. Annual incidence of hospitalized first attacks was estimat...


Journal of Chronic Diseases | 1969

Studies in the epidemiology and preventability of rheumatic fever. II. Socio-economic factors and the incidence of acute attacks.

Leon Gordis; Abraham M. Lilienfeld; Romeo Rodriguez

Abstract Incidence rates of hospitalized rheumatic fever from 1960 to 1964 have been calculated for socio-economic fifths of the Baltimore white and non-white populations. The incidence rates for non-whites are consistently higher than those for whites in each socio-economic fifth. With improving socio-economic status the incidence rate of rheumatic fever declines in the white population but in the non-white population there is no clear pattern of declining incidence. A comparison of white and non-white socio-economic fifths, in terms of housing characteristics, indicates that extent of crowding is the variable which relates most closely to incidence of rheumatic fever. When degree of crowding is held constant, incidence rates among non-whites are no higher than those calculated for whites. The data suggest that the higher incidence of rheumatic fever among non-whites is not a result of any particular susceptibility of non-whites to rheumatic fever, but relates to the crowded conditions in which most of this ethnic group live in Baltimore. The findings in this study suggest that socio-economic factors should be an important consideration in programs designed to prevent and control rheumatic fever.


Annals of Internal Medicine | 2008

Screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using spirometry: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Ned Calonge; Diana B. Petitti; Thomas G. DeWitt; Leon Gordis; Allen J. Dietrich; Kimberly D. Gregory; Russell Harris; George Isham; Michael L. LeFevre; Roseanne M. Leipzig; Carol Loveland-Cherry; Lucy N. Marion; Virginia A. Moyer; Judith K. Ockene; George F. Sawaya; Barbara P. Yawn

DESCRIPTION New U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation about screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using spirometry. METHODS The USPSTF weighed the benefits (prevention of > or =1 exacerbation and improvement in respiratory-related health status measures) and harms (time and effort required by both patients and the health care system, false-positive screening tests, and adverse effects of subsequent unnecessary therapy) of COPD screening identified in the accompanying review of the evidence. The USPSTF did not consider the financial costs of spirometry testing or COPD therapies. RECOMMENDATION Do not screen adults for COPD using spirometry. (Grade D recommendation).


Annals of Internal Medicine | 2007

Screening for high blood pressure: U.S. preventive services task force reaffirmation recommendation statement

Ned Calonge; Diana B. Petitti; Thomas G. DeWitt; Leon Gordis; Kimberly D. Gregory; Russell Harris; George Isham; Michael L. LeFevre; Carol Loveland-Cherry; Lucy N. Marion; Virginia A. Moyer; Judith K. Ockene; George F. Sawaya; Albert L. Siu; Steven M. Teutsch; Barbara P. Yawn

DESCRIPTION Reaffirmation of the 2003 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force statement about screening for high blood pressure. METHODS The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force did a targeted literature search for evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for high blood pressure. RECOMMENDATION Screen for high blood pressure in adults age 18 years or older. (Grade A recommendation).

Collaboration


Dive into the Leon Gordis's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Russell Harris

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Judith K. Ockene

University of Massachusetts Medical School

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Ned Calonge

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Virginia A. Moyer

Baylor College of Medicine

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Albert L. Siu

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge