Governance of microfinance institutions (MFIs) in Cameroon: What lessons can we learn?

The aim of this paper is to find out the effects of the COBAC regulations regulating the microfinance industry on the governance of microfinance institutions (MFIs) in Cameroon. The paper is based on 35 in-depth interviews carried out from May to June 2011 and June to July 2012 with managers and accountants from MFIs in Cameroon, MFI clients and non-clients, regulatory authorities in the Ministry of Finance, and accounting professionals. The findings show that the regulations have broken down the governance within the MFIs in Cameroon thus turning MFIs into hybrid organizations with managers striving to meet their shareholders' interests

Search for lepton-flavor violation at HERA

A search for lepton-flavor-violating interactions $e p \to \mu X$ and $e p\to \tau X$ has been performed with the ZEUS detector using the entire HERA I data sample, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 130 pb^{-1}. The data were taken at center-of-mass energies, $\sqrt{s}$, of 300 and 318 GeV. No evidence of lepton-flavor violation was found, and constraints were derived on leptoquarks (LQs) that could mediate such interactions. For LQ masses below $\sqrt{s}$, limits were set on $\lambda_{eq_1} \sqrt{\beta_{\ell q}}$, where $\lambda_{eq_1}$ is the coupling of the LQ to an electron and a first-generation quark $q_1$, and $\beta_{\ell q}$ is the branching ratio of the LQ to the final-state lepton $\ell$ ($\mu$ or $\tau$) and a quark $q$. For LQ masses much larger than $\sqrt{s}$, limits were set on the four-fermion interaction term $\lambda_{e q_\alpha} \lambda_{\ell q_\beta} / M_{\mathrm{LQ}}^2$ for LQs that couple to an electron and a quark $q_\alpha$ and to a lepton $\ell$ and a quark $q_\beta$, where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are quark generation indices. Some of the limits are also applicable to lepton-flavor-violating processes mediated by squarks in $R$-Parity-violating supersymmetric models. In some cases, especially when a higher-generation quark is involved and for the process $e p\to \tau X$, the ZEUS limits are the most stringent to date.Comment: 37 pages, 10 figures, Accepted by EPJC. References and 1 figure (Fig. 6) adde

Multijet production in neutral current deep inelastic scattering at HERA and determination of alpha_s

Multijet production rates in neutral current deep inelastic scattering have been measured in the range of exchanged boson virtualities 10 < Q2 < 5000 GeV2. The data were taken at the ep collider HERA with centre-of-mass energy sqrt(s) = 318 GeV using the ZEUS detector and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 82.2 pb-1. Jets were identified in the Breit frame using the k_T cluster algorithm in the longitudinally invariant inclusive mode. Measurements of differential dijet and trijet cross sections are presented as functions of jet transverse energy E_{T,B}{jet}, pseudorapidity eta_{LAB}{jet} and Q2 with E_{T,B}{jet} > 5 GeV and -1 < eta_{LAB}{jet} < 2.5. Next-to-leading-order QCD calculations describe the data well. The value of the strong coupling constant alpha_s(M_Z), determined from the ratio of the trijet to dijet cross sections, is alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.1179 pm 0.0013(stat.) {+0.0028}_{-0.0046}(exp.) {+0.0064}_{-0.0046}(th.)Comment: 22 pages, 5 figure

Measurement of charm fragmentation ratios and fractions in photoproduction at HERA

The production of D^*+, D^0, D^+, D_s^+ and Lambda_c^+ charm hadrons and their antiparticles in ep scattering at HERA was measured with the ZEUS detector using an integrated luminosity of 79 pb^-1. The measurement has been performed in the photoproduction regime with the exchanged-photon virtuality Q^2 < 1 GeV^2 and for photon-proton centre-of-mass energies in the range 130 < W < 300 GeV. The charm hadrons were reconstructed in the range of transverse momentum p_T(D, Lambda_c) > 3.8 GeV and pseudorapidity |eta(D, Lambda_c)| < 1.6. The production cross sections were used to determine the ratio of neutral and charged D-meson production rates, R_u/d, the strangeness-suppression factor, gamma_s, and the fraction of charged D mesons produced in a vector state, P_v^d. The measured R_u/d and gamma_s values agree with those obtained in deep inelastic scattering and in e^+e^- annihilations. The measured P_v^d value is smaller than, but consistent with, the previous measurements. The fractions of c quarks hadronising as a particular charm hadron, f(c -> D, Lambda_c), were derived in the given kinematic range. The measured open-charm fragmentation fractions are consistent with previous results, although the measured f(c -> D^*+) is smaller and f(c -> Lambda_c^+) is larger than those obtained in e^+e^- annihilations. These results generally support the hypothesis that fragmentation proceeds independently of the hard sub-process.Comment: 29 pages, 5 figures, 6 tables; minor text revision

Comparing probiotic and drug interventions in irritable bowel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Clinical decisions made by health professionals to recommend either drug or probiotic interventions for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) should be supported by proper knowledge of the efficacy rates of both types of interventions. In this article, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of both probiotic- and drug interventions in IBS. Medline was searched between January 2015 - January 2021. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) recruiting participants > 18 years old with IBS and examining the effect of probiotics or drugs were eligible for inclusion. The data of the primary outcome, i.e. the persistence of IBS symptoms (dichotomous symptom data), were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR), with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Secondary outcomes, abdominal pain- and bloating scores (continuous data), were pooled using a standardised mean difference with a 95% CI. The search identified 269 citations of which 32 RCTs were eligible. Our meta-analysis indicated that both probiotic and drug interventions are able to improve the persistence of IBS symptoms (RR 0.60 [0.51; 0.92] versus 0.87 [0.81; 0.92], respectively) and abdominal pain scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35 [-0.56; -0.14] versus -0.10 [-0.20; 0.00], respectively). However, determining the overall efficacy of both intervention types is inherently complex and such results should be interpreted with care, due to the large diversity of probiotic- and drug types and doses, which is also complicated by variety in IBS subtypes. Hence, as a first step, more large scale randomised double blind placebo-controlled trials focussing on a specific IBS subtype targeted with specific probiotic strains or specific pharmaceutical modalities should be executed, enabling a more proper comparison between trials

Inadequate safety reporting in the publications of randomised clinical trials in irritable bowel syndrome: drug versus probiotic interventions

Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) offer a unique opportunity to obtain controlled efficacy and safety data to support clinical decisions. However, most RCT reporting has a stronger focus on efficacy rather than safety. This study aimed to identify the safety profile of both probiotic and drug interventions in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). In connection to this paper, an accompanying paper was published in which a meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of probiotic interventions compared to that of drug interventions in IBS. Together, these two studies provide a first assessment regarding the feasibility to determine a burden to benefit ratio for both probiotic and drug interventions in IBS. RCTs including participants (>18 years old) with IBS and comparing probiotic or drugs interventions with control groups were identified by a systematic search of MEDLINE (January 2015 - Jan 2021). Reported safety profiles in drug studies were completer and more detailed as compared with studies on probiotics. Several inconsistencies in safety reporting were identified between and within drug and probiotic studies, such as: didn't report on safety; only reported adverse reactions (ARs) or adverse events (AEs) with a certain severity; didn't report the total number of AEs; didn't split in the control- or experimental arm; didn't specify AEs; and used different thresholds for 'common' AEs. Hence, it is difficult to compare safety data from drug and probiotic RCTs across and between different studies. On the current approaches to safety reporting, we could not establish an unambiguous safety profile for neither probiotic and drug interventions in IBS. These shortcomings hamper a critical comparison of the burden to benefit ratio for IBS intervention