Comparison of small and large deformation rheological properties of wheat dough and gluten

The rheological properties of dough and gluten are important for end-use quality of flour but there is a lack of knowledge of the relationships between fundamental and empirical tests and how they relate to flour composition and gluten quality. Dough and gluten from six breadmaking wheat qualities were subjected to a range of rheological tests. Fundamental (small-deformation) rheological characterizations (dynamic oscillatory shear and creep recovery) were performed on gluten to avoid the nonlinear influence of the starch component, whereas large deformation tests were conducted on both dough and gluten. A number of variables from the various curves were considered and subjected to a principal component analysis (PCA) to get an overview of relationships between the various variables. The first component represented variability in protein quality, associated with elasticity and tenacity in large deformation (large positive loadings for resistance to extension and initial slope of dough and gluten extension curves recorded by the SMS/Kieffer dough and gluten extensibility rig, and the tenacity and strain hardening index of dough measured by the Dobraszczyk/Roberts dough inflation system), the elastic character of the hydrated gluten proteins (large positive loading for elastic modulus [G'], large negative loadings for tan delta and steady state compliance [J(e)(0)]), the presence of high molecular weight glutenin subunits (HMW-GS) 5+10 vs. 2+12, and a size distribution of glutenin polymers shifted toward the high-end range. The second principal component was associated with flour protein content. Certain rheological data were influenced by protein content in addition to protein quality (area under dough extension curves and dough inflation curves [W]). The approach made it possible to bridge the gap between fundamental rheological properties, empirical measurements of physical properties, protein composition, and size distribution. The interpretation of this study gave indications of the molecular basis for differences in breadmaking performance

Evidence-based treatments for depression and anxiety versus treatment-as-usual: a meta-analysis of direct comparisons

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the relative efficacy of evidence-based treatments (EBTs) versus treatment-as-usual (TAU) in routine care for anxiety and depression in adults. METHOD: A computerized search of studies that directly compared an EBT with a TAU was conducted. Meta-analytic methods were used to estimate effectiveness of EBTs relative to TAU and to model how various confounding variables impacted the results of this comparative research. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies were included in the final meta-analysis. There was significant heterogeneity in the TAU conditions, which ranged from unknown and/or minimal mental health treatment to psychotherapeutic interventions provided by trained professionals. Although the effect for EBT vs. TAU was significantly greater than zero, the effect for EBT vs. TAUs that were psychotherapeutic interventions was not statistically different from zero. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity of TAU conditions in this meta-analysis highlight the importance of clarifying the research questions being asked when investigating and drawing conclusions from EBT-TAU comparisons. Researchers need to clarify if they are comparing an EBT to psychotherapeutic services in routine care or to minimal mental health services. Extant research on EBT versus TAU reveals that there is insufficient evidence to recommend the transportation of EBTs for anxiety and depression to routine care, particularly when the routine care involves psychotherapeutic services

Determining what works in the treatment of PTSD

Many researchers accept that trauma-focused treatments are superior to non-trauma focused treatments for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). However, Benish, Imel, and Wampold (2008) recently published a meta-analysis of clinical trials directly comparing 'bona fide' PTSD treatments that failed to reject the null hypothesis that PTSD treatments are similarly effective. They concluded that the results of previous meta-analysis may have been influenced by several confounds, including the use of control treatments, to make conclusions about the relative efficacy of specific PTSD treatments. Ehlers et al. (2010) claim that the selection procedures of the Benish et al. meta-analysis were biased and cite results from individual studies and previous meta-analyses that suggest trauma-focused psychological treatments are superior to non-trauma focused treatments. We first offer a review and justification of the coding criteria and procedure used in Benish et al. In addition, we discuss the appropriateness of utilizing treatments designed to control for non-specifics or common factors such as 'supportive therapy' for determining the relative efficacy of specific PTSD treatments. Finally, we note several additional confounds, such as therapist effects, allegiance, and alteration of legitimate protocols, in PTSD research and describe conceptual problems involved in the classification scheme used to determine the "trauma focus" of interventions, which lead to inappropriate conclusions about what works in the treatment of PTSD