单选题支气管哮喘持续状态很重要的去痰方法是

单选题A．小结节性肝硬化B．大结节性肝硬化C．两者均有D．两者均无

单选题患有病毒性肝炎时，肝细胞凋亡的病变是

单选题不属于下消化道内镜检查的禁忌证是

单选题炎症过程中最早出现的血管反应是

单选题女性，30岁，低热、盗汗、心悸1月余。体格检查：甲状腺右叶结节性肿大，伴有触痛。实验室检查：FT 3 、FT 4 升高，血沉56mm/h，本患者最可能是

单选题治疗消化性溃疡应用下列何种药物抑制胃酸和胃蛋白酶分泌最有效( )(1993年)

单选题男，62岁，经丙硫氧嘧啶治疗1.5年后甲状腺较前缩小。T 3 抑制试验：3小时抑制率>50％，24小时抑制率>50％，TT 3 、TT 4 正常。对此患者应做的处理是

单选题下述哪种因子不存在于血浆中A．Ⅴ因子B．Ⅲ因子C．Ⅹ因子D．Ⅻ因子E．Ⅶ因子

单选题男性，26岁。哮喘重度发作来急诊。体检见患者张口、端坐呼吸，大汗淋漓，叙述病史仅能说些单词或短语而不连贯。为评价病情，下列体征中哪一项预示病情严重

单选题关于溃疡性结肠炎，下列哪项正确

单选题关于炎症介质的描述，哪项是错误的( )(1997年)

单选题A．DDD型B．VVI型C．AAI型D．ICD型

单选题霍奇金病具有诊断意义的细胞主要是( )(1997年)

单选题肺结核患者有痰菌阳性，下列哪是错误的

单选题抗利尿激素( )(1989年)

单选题A．非同步电复律B．同步电复律C．阿托品1～2mg静脉注射D．静脉注射胺碘酮

单选题不符合大叶性肺炎的描述是

单选题A．童虫B．虫卵C．毛蚴D．尾蚴

单选题Companies have embarked on what looks like the beginnings of a re-run of the mergers and acquisitions (M&A) wave that defined the second bubbly half of the 1990s. That period, readers might recall, was characterized by a collective splurge that saw the creation of some of the most indebted companies in history, many of which later went bankrupt or were themselves broken up. Wild bidding for telecoms, internet and media assets, not to mention the madness that was Daimler's $40 billion motoring takeover in 1998-1999 of Chrysler or the Time-Warner/AOL mega-merger in 2000, helped to give mergers a thoroughly bad name. A consensus emerged that M&A was a great way for investment banks to reap rich fees, and a sure way for ambitious managers to betray investors by trashing the value of their shares. Now M&A is back. Its return is a global phenomenon, but it is perhaps most striking in Europe, where so far this year there has been a stream of deals worth more than $600 billion in total, around 40% higher than in the same period of 2004. The latest effort came this week when France's Saint-Gobain, a building-materials firm, unveiled the details of its￡3.6 billion ($6.5 billion) hostile bid for BPB, a British rival. In the first half of the year, cross-border activity was up threefold over the same period last year. Even France Telecom, which was left almost bankrupt at the end of the last merger wave, recently bought Amena , a Spanish mobile operator. Shareholder's approval of all these deals raises an interesting question for companies everywhere, are investors right to think that these mergers are more likely to succeed than earlier ones? There are two answers. The first is that past mergers may have been judged too harshly. The second is that the present rash of European deals does look more rational, but-and the caveat is crucial-only so far. The pattern may not hold. M&A 's poor reputation stems not only from the string of spectacular failures in the 1990s, but also from studies that showed value destruction for acquiring shareholders in 80% of deals. But more recent studies by economists have introduced a note of caution. Investors should look at the number of deals that succeed or fail (typically measured by the impact on the share price), rather than (as you might think) weighing them by size. For example, no one doubts that the Daimler-Chrysler merger destroyed value. The combined market value of the two firms is still below that of Daimler alone before the deal. This single deal accounted for half of all German M&A activity by value in 1998 and 1999, and probably dominated people's thinking about mergers to the same degree. Throw in a few other such monsters and it is no wonder that broad studies have tended to find that mergers are a bad idea. The true picture is more complicated.