Reasons to Be Skeptical about Sentience and Pain in Fishes and Aquatic Invertebrates

The welfare of fishes and aquatic invertebrates is important, and several jurisdictions have included these taxa under welfare regulation in recent years. Regulation of welfare requires use of scientifically validated welfare criteria. This is why applying Mertonian skepticism toward claims for sentience and pain in fishes and aquatic invertebrates is scientifically sound and prudent, particularly when those claims are used to justify legislation regulating the welfare of these taxa. Enacting welfare legislation for these taxa without strong scientific evidence is a societal and political choice that risks creating scientific and interpretational problems as well as major policy challenges, including the potential to generate significant unintended consequences. In contrast, a more rigorous science-based approach to the welfare of aquatic organisms that is based on verified, validated and measurable endpoints is more likely to result in “win-win” scenarios that minimize the risk of unintended negative impacts for all stakeholders, including fish and aquatic invertebrates. The authors identify as supporters of animal welfare, and emphasize that this issue is not about choosing between welfare and no welfare for fish and aquatic invertebrates, but rather to ensure that important decisions about their welfare are based on scientifically robust evidence. These ten reasons are delivered in the spirit of organized skepticism to orient legislators, decision makers and the scientific community, and alert them to the need to maintain a high scientific evidential bar for any operational welfare indicators used for aquatic animals, particularly those mandated by legislation. Moving forward, maintaining the highest scientific standards is vitally important, in order to protect not only aquatic animal welfare, but also global food security and the welfare of humans

The development and validation of a scoring tool to predict the operative duration of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background: The ability to accurately predict operative duration has the potential to optimise theatre efficiency and utilisation, thus reducing costs and increasing staff and patient satisfaction. With laparoscopic cholecystectomy being one of the most commonly performed procedures worldwide, a tool to predict operative duration could be extremely beneficial to healthcare organisations. Methods: Data collected from the CholeS study on patients undergoing cholecystectomy in UK and Irish hospitals between 04/2014 and 05/2014 were used to study operative duration. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was produced in order to identify significant independent predictors of long (> 90 min) operations. The resulting model was converted to a risk score, which was subsequently validated on second cohort of patients using ROC curves. Results: After exclusions, data were available for 7227 patients in the derivation (CholeS) cohort. The median operative duration was 60 min (interquartile range 45–85), with 17.7% of operations lasting longer than 90 min. Ten factors were found to be significant independent predictors of operative durations > 90 min, including ASA, age, previous surgical admissions, BMI, gallbladder wall thickness and CBD diameter. A risk score was then produced from these factors, and applied to a cohort of 2405 patients from a tertiary centre for external validation. This returned an area under the ROC curve of 0.708 (SE = 0.013, p  90 min increasing more than eightfold from 5.1 to 41.8% in the extremes of the score. Conclusion: The scoring tool produced in this study was found to be significantly predictive of long operative durations on validation in an external cohort. As such, the tool may have the potential to enable organisations to better organise theatre lists and deliver greater efficiencies in care

When pain brings gain: Soccer players behaviour and admissions suggest feigning injury to maintain a favourable scoreline

The rules of soccer dictate that play, once halted, cannot continue if a player is injured. Players may take advantage of this rule by feigning injury to preserve beneficial match positions. Thirty Euro 2008 matches, 90 Premier League matches and 63 World Cup 2010 matches were reviewed for the timing and severity of injuries. The number of injuries was compared between teams that benefited from stopping the game and those that did not benefit. The number of low-level injuries, not resulting in substitution or subsequent problems, was directly compared for benefit and non-benefit teams for each 15-minute period following kick off. Statistical significance was assessed using appropriate non-parametric tests. In addition, seven current players and three managers were interviewed and were asked about feigning injury. Teams that benefited from game stoppages suffered significantly more minor injuries in the last 15 minutes of matches compared with those that did not benefit. Four of the players directly admitted feigning injury. When it is beneficial, soccer players can and do successfully feign injury to stop the game. Consequently it is possible that others might also successfully feign injury, pain or disease when motivated to do so

Medical journals: past their sell by date?

A former BMJ editor lets rip about medical journals, but is he right? asks Stuart Derbyshir