Search for light massive gauge bosons as an explanation of the (g−2)μ(g-2)_\mu anomaly at MAMI

A massive, but light abelian U(1) gauge boson is a well motivated possible signature of physics beyond the Standard Model of particle physics. In this paper, the search for the signal of such a U(1) gauge boson in electron-positron pair-production at the spectrometer setup of the A1 Collaboration at the Mainz Microtron (MAMI) is described. Exclusion limits in the mass range of 40 MeV up to 300 MeV with a sensitivity in the mixing parameter of down to $\epsilon^2 = 8\times 10^{-7}$ are presented. A large fraction of the parameter space has been excluded where the discrepancy of the measured anomalous magnetic moment of the muon with theory might be explained by an additional U(1) gauge boson.Comment: 4 pages, 3 figure

Comparative study of imaging at 3.0 T versus 1.5 T of the knee

The objectives of the study were to compare MR imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T in the same patients concerning image quality and visualization of cartilage pathology and to assess diagnostic performance using arthroscopy as a standard of reference. Twenty-six patients were identified retrospectively as having comparative 1.5 and 3.0 T MR studies of the knee within an average of 102 days. Standard protocols included T1-weighted and fat-saturated intermediate-weighted fast spin-echo sequences in three planes; sequence parameters had been adjusted to account for differences in relaxation at 3.0 T. Arthroscopy was performed in 19 patients. Four radiologists reviewed each study independently, scored image quality, and analyzed pathological findings. Sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies in diagnosing cartilage lesions were calculated in the 19 patients with arthroscopy, and differences between 1.5 and 3.0 T exams were compared using paired Student’s t tests with a significance threshold of p < 0.05. Each radiologist scored the 3.0 T studies higher than those obtained at 1.5 T in visualizing anatomical structures and abnormalities (p < 0.05). Using arthroscopy as a standard of reference, diagnosis of cartilage abnormalities was improved at 3.0 T with higher sensitivity (75.7% versus 70.6%), accuracy (88.2% versus 86.4%), and correct grading of cartilage lesions (51.3% versus 42.9%). Diagnostic confidence scores were higher at 3.0 than 1.5 T (p < 0.05) and signal-to-noise ratio at 3.0 T was approximately twofold higher than at 1.5 T. MRI at 3.0 T improved visualization of anatomical structures and improved diagnostic confidence compared to 1.5 T. This resulted in significantly better sensitivity and grading of cartilage lesions at the knee

Biased interpretations of ambiguous bodily threat information in adolescents with chronic pain

Adult patients with chronic pain are consistently shown to interpret ambiguous health and bodily information in a pain- related and threatening way. This interpretation bias may play a role in the development and maintenance of pain and disability. However, no studies have yet investigated the role of interpretation bias in adolescent patients with pain, despite that pain often first becomes chronic in youth. We administered the Adolescent Interpretations of Bodily Threat (AIBT) task to adolescents with chronic pain (N = 66) and adolescents without chronic pain (N = 74). Adolescents were 10 to 18 years old and completed the study procedures either at the clinic (patient group) or at school (control group). We found that adolescents with chronic pain were less likely to endorse benign interpretations of ambiguous pain and bodily threat information than adolescents without chronic pain, particularly when reporting on the strength of belief in those interpretations being true. These differences between patients and controls were not evident for ambiguous social situations, and they could not be explained by differences in anxious or depressive symptoms. Furthermore, this interpretation pattern was associated with increased levels of disability among adolescent patients, even after controlling for severity of chronic pain and pain catastrophizing. The current findings extend our understanding of the role and nature of cognition in adolescent pain, and provide justification for using the AIBT task in longitudinal and training studies to further investigate causal associations between interpretation bias and chronic pain

Attentional bias to somatosensory stimuli in chronic pain patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the evidence pertaining to attentional bias for painful and nonpainful somatosensory stimuli in individuals with chronic pain. Eligible studies were identified through searches of Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Search terms were words and phrases organised into 3 concept blocks: pain condition, cognitive process, and stimuli/paradigm. The search identified 29 eligible studies (reporting 32 eligible experiments), of which quantitative meta-analysis was possible for 16 studies (19 experiments). The meta-analysis found that chronic pain patients, excluding somatoform pain patients, showed significantly greater attentional bias to stimuli in the somatosensory modality than healthy controls (k = 9, g = 0.34). In addition, meta-analysis of studies that used a temporal order judgement task found that patients with unilateral chronic pain showed a spatial attentional bias away from somatosensory stimuli (k = 7, effect estimate = 22.43 ms) and visual stimuli (k = 2, effect estimate = 13.75 ms) on or near the painful body side. Most studies of attentional bias to the somatosensory modality recruited samples of patients with fibromyalgia, whereas most studies of spatial attentional bias assessed patients with complex regional pain syndrome. The extent to which these results generalise to other pain conditions is therefore unclear. We recommend future research test spatial and modality attentional biases across chronic pain conditions and examine the psychometric properties of attentional bias measurement paradigms for use with chronic pain populations. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019124510.</p

Barriers and facilitators experienced by patients, carers and healthcare professionals when managing symptoms in infants, children and young people at end-of-life: a mixed methods systematic review protocol

Introduction This protocol describes the objective and methods of a systematic review of barriers and facilitators experienced by patients, carers and healthcare professionals when managing symptoms in infants, children and young people (ICYP) at end-of-life. Methods and analysis The Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database, Evidence Search and OpenGrey will be electronically searched. Reference screening of relevant articles and inquiries to researchers in the field will be undertaken. Studies will be selected if they apply qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods designs to explore barriers and facilitators experienced by patients, carers and healthcare professionals when managing symptoms in ICYP at end-of-life. Articles will be screened by title and abstract by one reviewer with a second reviewer assessing 10% of the articles. Both reviewers will read and screen all remaining potentially relevant articles. For included articles, one reviewer will extract study characteristics and one will check this. Both reviewers will undertake independent quality assessments of included studies using established and appropriate checklists including The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist; The evaluative criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability; The Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies, and The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data synthesis methods will be decided after data extraction and assessment. Ethics and dissemination This review will inform our understanding of symptom management in ICYP at endof-life. The findings will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. The study raises no ethical issues