Introduction to “Binary Binds”: Deconstructing Sex and Gender Dichotomies in Archaeological Practice

YesGender archaeology has made significant strides toward deconstructing the hegemony of binary categorizations. Challenging dichotomies such as man/woman, sex/gender, and biology/culture, approaches informed by poststructuralist, feminist, and queer theories have moved beyond essentialist and universalist identity constructs to more nuanced configurations. Despite the theoretical emphasis on context, multiplicity, and fluidity, binary starting points continue to streamline the spectrum of variability that is recognized, often reproducing normative assumptions in the evidence. The contributors to this special issue confront how sex, gender, and sexuality categories condition analytical visibility, aiming to develop approaches that respond to the complexity of theory in archaeological practice. The papers push the ontological and epistemological boundaries of bodies, personhood, and archaeological possibility, challenging a priori assumptions that contain how sex, gender, and sexuality categories are constituted and related to each other. Foregrounding intersectional approaches that engage with ambiguity, variability, and difference, this special issue seeks to “de-contain” categories, assumptions, and practices from “binding” our analytical gaze toward only certain kinds of persons and knowledges, in interpretations of the past and practices in the present

Left Bundle Branch Block, an Old–New Entity

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is generally associated with a poorer prognosis in comparison to normal intraventricular conduction, but also in comparison to right bundle branch block which is generally considered to be benign in the absence of an underlying cardiac disorder like congenital heart disease. LBBB may be the first manifestation of a more diffuse myocardial disease. The typical surface ECG feature of LBBB is a prolongation of QRS above 0.11 s in combination with a delay of the intrinsic deflection in leads V5 and V6 of more than 60 ms and no septal q waves in leads I, V5, and V6 due to the abnormal septal activation from right to left. LBBB may induce abnormalities in left ventricular performance due to abnormal asynchronous contraction patterns which can be compensated by biventricular pacing (resynchronization therapy). Asynchronous electrical activation of the ventricles causes regional differences in workload which may lead to asymmetric hypertrophy and left ventricular dilatation, especially due to increased wall mass in late-activated regions, which may aggravate preexisting left ventricular pumping performance or even induce it. Of special interest are patients with LBBB and normal left ventricular dimensions and normal ejection fraction at rest but who may present with an abnormal increase in pulmonary artery pressure during exercise, production of lactate during high-rate pacing, signs of ischemia on myocardial scintigrams (but no coronary artery narrowing), and abnormal ultrastructural findings on myocardial biopsy. For this entity, the term latent cardiomyopathy had been suggested previously

Computerized clinical decision support systems for drug prescribing and management: A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) for drug therapy management are designed to promote safe and effective medication use. Evidence documenting the effectiveness of CCDSSs for improving drug therapy is necessary for informed adoption decisions. The objective of this review was to systematically review randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of CCDSSs for drug therapy management on process of care and patient outcomes. We also sought to identify system and study characteristics that predicted benefit.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We updated our earlier reviews (1998, 2005) by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, Inspec, and other databases, and consulting reference lists through January 2010. Authors of 82% of included studies confirmed or supplemented extracted data. We included only randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect on process of care or patient outcomes of a CCDSS for drug therapy management compared to care provided without a CCDSS. A study was considered to have a positive effect (<it>i.e.</it>, CCDSS showed improvement) if at least 50% of the relevant study outcomes were statistically significantly positive.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Sixty-five studies met our inclusion criteria, including 41 new studies since our previous review. Methodological quality was generally high and unchanged with time. CCDSSs improved process of care performance in 37 of the 59 studies assessing this type of outcome (64%, 57% of all studies). Twenty-nine trials assessed patient outcomes, of which six trials (21%, 9% of all trials) reported improvements.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>CCDSSs inconsistently improved process of care measures and seldomly improved patient outcomes. Lack of clear patient benefit and lack of data on harms and costs preclude a recommendation to adopt CCDSSs for drug therapy management.</p

Participants in Citizen Science

The most important factor that defines citizen science is that non-professional scientists contribute to scientific research. Therefore, it is important to recognise the perspectives and experiences of these participants. Projects may provide ways for participants to contribute to scientific research at different stages of the scientific process according to different levels of engagement. Understanding what motivates citizen scientists to engage in a project, and subsequently matching the project to these motivations, will help project leaders to recruit and retain participants. In addition, it is important to understand what benefits participants gain from engagement in citizen science projects. For individual projects, this will help ensure that scientists as well as participants benefit. For the wider field of citizen science, this will provide evidence of the potential impact of citizen science on participants. However, participants may also encounter challenges during their engagement with citizen science projects. Project leaders and scientists should plan in advance to address these challenges and ensure that relevant expertise is present in the project team. Keywords Citizen engagement · Participant motiScience Communication and Societ