Directional and fluctuating asymmetry in finger and a-b ridge counts in psychosis: a case-control study

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported alterations in finger and a-b ridge counts, and their derived measures of asymmetry, in schizophrenia compared to controls. Because ridges are fully formed by the end of the second trimester, they may provide clues to disturbed early development. The aim of this study was to assess these measures in a sample of patients with psychosis and normal controls. METHODS: Individuals with psychosis (n = 240), and normal controls (n = 228) were drawn from a catchment-area case-control study. Differences in finger and a-b ridge count and Fluctuating Asymmetry were assessed in three group comparisons (non-affective psychosis versus controls; affective psychosis versus controls; non-affective psychosis versus affective psychosis). The analyses were performed separately for males and females. RESULTS: There were no significant group differences for finger nor a-b ridge counts. While there were no group difference for Directional Asymmetry, for Fluctuating Asymmetry measures men with non-affective psychosis had significantly higher fluctuating asymmetry of the index finger ridge count (a) when compared to controls (FA-correlation score, p = 0.02), and (b) when compared to affective psychosis (adjusted FA-difference score, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Overall, measures of finger and a-b ridge counts, and their derived measures of directional and fluctuating asymmetry were not prominent features of psychosis in this sample. While directional asymmetry in cerebral morphology is reduced in schizophrenia, this is not reflected in dermatoglyphic variables

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in UK surgical trials: a survey and focus groups with stakeholders to identify practices, views, and experiences

Background and aims Historically, patient and public involvement (PPI) in the design and conduct of surgical trials has been absent or minimal, but it is now routinely recommended and even required by some research funders. We aimed to identify and describe current PPI practice in surgical trials in the United Kingdom, and to explore the views and experiences of surgical trial staff and patient or public contributors in relation to these practices. This was part of a larger study to inform development of a robust PPI intervention aimed at improving recruitment and retention in surgical trials. Methods Our study had two stages: 1) an online survey to identify current PPI practice in active UK-led, adult surgical trials; and 2) focus groups and interviews with key stakeholders (surgical trial investigators, administrators, and patient or public contributors) to explore their views and experiences of PPI. Results Of 129 eligible surgical trial teams identified, 71 (55%) took part in the survey. In addition, 54 stakeholders subsequently took part in focus groups or interviews. Sixty-five (92%) survey respondents reported some kind of PPI, most commonly at the design and dissemination stages and in oversight or advisory roles. The single most common PPI activity was developing participant information sheets (72%). Participants reported mixed practice and views on a variety of issues including the involvement of patients versus lay members of the public, recruitment methods, use of role descriptions and payment for the time of PPI contributors. They suggested some solutions, including the use of written role descriptions and databases of potential PPI contributors to aid recruitment. Conclusions UK surgical trials involve patients and members of the public in a variety of different ways, most commonly at the beginning and end of the trial lifecycle and in oversight or advisory roles. These are not without challenges and there remain uncertainties about who best to involve, why, and how. Future research should aim to address these issues

A Systematic Review of the Prevalence of Schizophrenia

BACKGROUND: Understanding the prevalence of schizophrenia has important implications for both health service planning and risk factor epidemiology. The aims of this review are to systematically identify and collate studies describing the prevalence of schizophrenia, to summarize the findings of these studies, and to explore selected factors that may influence prevalence estimates. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Studies with original data related to the prevalence of schizophrenia (published 1965–2002) were identified via searching electronic databases, reviewing citations, and writing to authors. These studies were divided into “core” studies, “migrant” studies, and studies based on “other special groups.” Between- and within-study filters were applied in order to identify discrete prevalence estimates. Cumulative plots of prevalence estimates were made and the distributions described when the underlying estimates were sorted according to prevalence type (point, period, lifetime, and lifetime morbid risk). Based on combined prevalence estimates, the influence of selected key variables was examined (sex, urbanicity, migrant status, country economic index, and study quality). A total of 1,721 prevalence estimates from 188 studies were identified. These estimates were drawn from 46 countries, and were based on an estimated 154,140 potentially overlapping prevalent cases. We identified 132 core studies, 15 migrant studies, and 41 studies based on other special groups. The median values per 1,000 persons (10%–90% quantiles) for the distributions for point, period, lifetime, and lifetime morbid risk were 4.6 (1.9–10.0), 3.3 (1.3–8.2), 4.0 (1.6–12.1), and 7.2 (3.1–27.1), respectively. Based on combined prevalence estimates, we found no significant difference (a) between males and females, or (b) between urban, rural, and mixed sites. The prevalence of schizophrenia in migrants was higher compared to native-born individuals: the migrant-to-native-born ratio median (10%–90% quantile) was 1.8 (0.9–6.4). When sites were grouped by economic status, prevalence estimates from “least developed” countries were significantly lower than those from both “emerging” and “developed” sites (p = 0.04). Studies that scored higher on a quality score had significantly higher prevalence estimates (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: There is a wealth of data about the prevalence of schizophrenia. These gradients, and the variability found in prevalence estimate distributions, can provide direction for future hypothesis-driven research

Mel karrita ; Zeyed zeyed ; Orgoci oughanni / Mohamed El Jarrari, chant [acc. instr.]

BnF-Partenariats, Collection sonore - BelieveContient une table des matière