Tests of Adaptive Coloration Hypotheses for Madtom (Notorus) Catfishes (Siluriformes: Ictaluridae)

Predators select for defensive adaptations, such as stings, toxins, and camouflage color patterns. Madtoms, Noturus, are diminutive catfishes with dorsal and pectoral stings. Thirteen of the 25 nominal species have serrated spines in the pectoral sting and a contrasting pigment pattern. Behavior of two saddled species, N. miurus and N. hildebrandi, and one uniformly colored species, N. leptacanthus, was investigated to test if the pigment pattern is camouflage. Saddle spacing and crypticity of the saddled species were measured against various substrates and were found to be unevenly spaced, which could be camouflage when viewed against gravel. Given substrate choices, madtoms preferred gravel during daylight conditions. In subsequent experiments, all species were given colored gravel to test color vs. texture-based substrate choice and preferred dark substrates. In the presence of a predator stimulus, madtoms preferred gravel at night and dawn. The pigment pattern likely is camouflage when viewed against gravel substrates

The introduction of the TMPG fails charge for U.S. Treasury securities

The TMPG fails charge for U.S. Treasury securities provides that a buyer of Treasury securities can claim monetary compensation from the seller if the seller fails to deliver the securities on a timely basis. The charge was introduced in May 2009 and replaced an existing market convention of simply postponing—without any explicit penalty and at an unchanged invoice price—a seller’s obligation to deliver Treasury securities if the seller fails to deliver the securities on a scheduled settlement date. This article explains how a proliferation of settlement fails following the insolvency of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in September 2008 led the Treasury Market Practices Group (TMPG)—a group of market professionals committed to supporting the integrity and efficiency of the U.S. Treasury market—to promote a change in the existing market convention. The change—the introduction of the fails charge—was significant because it mitigated an important dysfunctionality in the secondary market for U.S. Treasury securities and because it stands as an example of the value of cooperation between the public and private sectors in responding to altered market conditions in a flexible, timely, and innovative fashion.Treasury bonds ; Government securities ; Clearing of securities ; Secondary markets

Splitting the South: China and India’s Divergence in International Environmental Negotiations

International environmental negotiations often involve conflicts between developed and developing countries. However, considering environmental cooperation in a North-South dichotomy obscures important variation within the Global South, particularly as emerging economies become more important politically, economically, and environmentally. This article examines change in the Southern coalition in environmental negotiations, using the recently concluded Minamata Convention on Mercury as its primary case. Focusing on India and China, we argue that three key factors explain divergence in their positions as the negotiations progressed: domestic resources and regulatory politics, development constraints, and domestic scientific and technological capacity. We conclude that the intersection between scientific and technological development and domestic policy is of increasing importance in shaping emerging economies’ engagement in international environmental negotiations. We also discuss how this divergence is affecting international environmental cooperation on other issues, including the ozone and climate negotiations

Interventions to improve emergency department use for mental health reasons:Protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review

BACKGROUND: Healthcare resources are limited and unnecessary, and inappropriate emergency department use is now a highly visible healthcare priority. Individuals visiting the emergency department for mental health-related reasons are often amongst the most frequent presenters. In response, researchers and clinicians have created interventions to streamline emergency department use and several primary studies describe the effects of these interventions. Yet, no consensus exists on the optimal approach, and information on the quality of development, effectiveness, acceptability, and economic considerations is hard to find. The purpose of this study is to systematically review interventions designed to improve appropriate use of the emergency department for mental health reasons. METHOD: A mixed-method systematic review using Joanna Briggs Methodology. Search combining electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, PROQUEST, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health) and secondary searches (grey literature and hand search with consultation). Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts using predetermined eligibility criteria and a third reviewer will resolve conflicts. Full texts will also be screened by two independent reviews and conflicts resolved in a consensus meeting with a third reviewer. A pilot-tested data extraction form will be used to retrieve data relevant to the study objectives. We will assess the quality and of all included studies. Data describing interventions will be summarized using logic models and reported narratively. Quality of development will be assessed using the Oxford Implementation Index. For data on intervention effectiveness, we will assess statistical heterogeneity and conduct a meta-analysis using a random effects method, if appropriate. For interventions that cannot be pooled, we will report outcomes narratively and descriptively. Qualitative data on acceptability will be synthesized using meta-aggregation and an economic evaluation of interventions will be done. The reporting of this protocol follows the PRISMA-P statement. DISCUSSION: Using a combined systematic review methodology and integrated knowledge translation plan, the project will provide decision makers with concrete evidence to support the implementation and evaluation of interventions to improve emergency department use for mental health reasons. These interventions reflect widespread priorities in the area of mental health care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018087430

Primary care evidence in clinical guidelines: a mixed methods study of practitioners' views

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are widely used in primary care, yet are not always based on applicable research. AIM: To explore primary care practitioners’ views on the applicability to primary care patients of evidence underpinning National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline recommendations. DESIGN AND SETTING: Delphi survey and focus groups in primary care, England, UK. METHOD: Delphi survey of the perceived applicability of 14 guideline recommendations rated before and after a description of their evidence base, followed by two focus groups. RESULTS: GPs significantly reduced scores for their perceived likelihood of pursuing recommendations after finding these were based on studies with low applicability to primary care, but maintained their scores for recommendations based on highly applicable research. GPs reported they were more likely to use guidelines where evidence was applicable to primary care, and less likely if the evidence base came from a secondary care population. Practitioners in the focus groups accepted that guideline developers would use the most relevant evidence available, but wanted clearer signposting of those recommendations particularly relevant for primary care patients. Their main need was for brief, clear, and accessible guidelines. CONCLUSION: Guidelines should specify the extent to which the research evidence underpinning each recommendation is applicable to primary care. The relevance of guideline recommendations to primary care populations could be more explicitly considered at all three stages of guideline development: scoping and evidence synthesis, recommendation development, and publication. The relevant evidence base needs to be presented clearly and concisely, and in an easy to identify way

A review of clinical practice guidelines found that they were often based on evidence of uncertain relevance to primary care patients

Objectives: Primary care patients typically have less severe illness than those in hospital and may be overtreated if clinical guideline evidence is inappropriately generalized. We aimed to assess whether guideline recommendations for primary care were based on relevant research. Study Design and Setting: Literature review of all publications cited in support of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations for primary care. The relevance to primary care of all 45 NICE clinical guidelines published in 2010 and 2011, and their recommendations, was assessed by an expert panel. Results: Twenty-two of 45 NICE clinical guidelines published in 2010 and 2011 were relevant to primary care. These 22 guidelines contained 1,185 recommendations, of which 495 were relevant to primary care, and cited evidence from 1,573 research publications. Of these cited publications, 590 (38%, range by guideline 6–74%) were based on patients typical of primary care. Conclusion: Nearly two-third (62%) of publications cited to support primary care recommendations were of uncertain relevance to patients in primary care. Guideline development groups should more clearly identify which recommendations are intended for primary care and uncertainties about the relevance of the supporting evidence to primary care patients, to avoid potential overtreatment