Lettres d'Amérique

Mode of access: Internet

Epiphytic metazoans on emergent macrophytes in oxbow lakes of the Krapina River, Croatia: differences related to plant species and limnological conditions

This study investigated the structure of the epiphytic metazoans on emerged macrophytes in the littoral zone of two oxbow lakes with different trophic levels. Differences in the diversity and density of the epiphytic metazoans were analyzed in relation to plant architecture (simple or complex stems), food resources (algae and detritus) and water characteristics (transparency and derived trophic state index). Asignificant negative correlation was found between detritus on plants as food resource, and diversity and density of epiphytic metazoans, indicating grazing of microphagous species. Rotifers dominated in diversity and density in the epiphyton on all habitats. Total density of metazoans, rotifers and copepods in epiphyton were significantly higher on Mentha in mesotrophic lake than on Iris in a eutrophic lake.We presume that macrophyte belt width and trophic state governed biotic interactions and consequently epiphytic assemblages more strongly than macrophyte architecture. However, a Mentha habitat showed a slightly higher density and diversity of epiphytic metazoans in relation to Iris at the same site, but these differences were not significant

Factor analysis of the Zung self-rating depression scale in a large sample of patients with major depressive disorder in primary care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aim of this study was to examine the symptomatic dimensions of depression in a large sample of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) in the primary care (PC) setting by means of a factor analysis of the Zung self-rating depression scale (ZSDS).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A factor analysis was performed, based on the polychoric correlations matrix, between ZSDS items using promax oblique rotation in 1049 PC patients with a diagnosis of MDD (DSM-IV).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A clinical interpretable four-factor solution consisting of a <it>core depressive </it>factor (I); a <it>cognitive </it>factor (II); an <it>anxiety </it>factor (III) and a <it>somatic </it>factor (IV) was extracted. These factors accounted for 36.9% of the variance on the ZSDS. The 4-factor structure was validated and high coefficients of congruence were obtained (0.98, 0.95, 0.92 and 0.87 for factors I, II, III and IV, respectively). The model seemed to fit the data well with fit indexes within recommended ranges (GFI = 0.9330, AGFI = 0.9112 and RMR = 0.0843).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our findings suggest that depressive symptoms in patients with MDD in the PC setting cluster into four dimensions: <it>core depressive, cognitive, anxiety </it>and <it>somatic</it>, by means of a factor analysis of the ZSDS. Further research is needed to identify possible diagnostic, therapeutic or prognostic implications of the different depressive symptomatic profiles.</p

Individual recovery expectations and prognosis of outcomes in non‐specific low back pain:prognostic factor review

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is costly and disabling. Prognostic factor evidence can help healthcare providers and patients understand likely prognosis, inform the development of prediction models to identify subgroups, and may inform new treatment strategies. Recent studies have suggested that people who have poor expectations for recovery experience more back pain disability, but study results have differed. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise evidence on the association between recovery expectations and disability outcomes in adults with low back pain, and explore sources of heterogeneity. SEARCH METHODS: The search strategy included broad and focused electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO to 12 March 2019, reference list searches of relevant reviews and included studies, and citation searches of relevant expectation measurement tools. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included low back pain prognosis studies from any setting assessing general, self-efficacy, and treatment expectations (measured dichotomously and continuously on a 0 - 10 scale), and their association with work participation, clinically important recovery, functional limitations, or pain intensity outcomes at short (3 months), medium (6 months), long (12 months), and very long (> 16 months) follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted study characteristics and all reported estimates of unadjusted and adjusted associations between expectations and related outcomes. Two review authors independently assessed risks of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. We conducted narrative syntheses and meta-analyses when appropriate unadjusted or adjusted estimates were available. Two review authors independently graded and reported the overall quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We screened 4635 unique citations to include 60 studies (30,530 participants). Thirty-five studies were conducted in Europe, 21 in North America, and four in Australia. Study populations were mostly chronic (37%), from healthcare (62%) or occupational settings (26%). General expectation was the most common type of recovery expectation measured (70%); 16 studies measured more than one type of expectation. Usable data for syntheses were available for 52 studies (87% of studies; 28,885 participants). We found moderate-quality evidence that positive recovery expectations are strongly associated with better work participation (narrative synthesis: 21 studies; meta-analysis: 12 studies, 4777 participants: odds ratio (OR) 2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64 to 3.62), and low-quality evidence for clinically important recovery outcomes (narrative synthesis: 12 studies; meta-analysis: 5 studies, 1820 participants: OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.41), both at follow-up times closest to 12 months, using adjusted data. The association of recovery expectations with other outcomes of interest, including functional limitations (narrative synthesis: 10 studies; meta-analysis: 3 studies, 1435 participants: OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.31) and pain intensity (narrative synthesis: 9 studies; meta-analysis: 3 studies, 1555 participants: OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.23) outcomes at follow-up times closest to 12 months using adjusted data, is less certain, achieving very low- and low-quality evidence, respectively. No studies reported statistically significant or clinically important negative associations between recovery expectations and any low back pain outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that individual recovery expectations are probably strongly associated with future work participation (moderate-quality evidence) and may be associated with clinically important recovery outcomes (low-quality evidence). The association of recovery expectations with other outcomes of interest is less certain. Our findings suggest that recovery expectations should be considered in future studies, to improve prognosis and management of low back pain