Phylogeny, biogeography and diversification patterns of side-necked turtles (Testudines: Pleurodira)

Pleurodires or side-necked turtles are today restricted to freshwater environments of South America, Africa– Madagascar and Australia, but in the past they were distributed much more broadly, being found also on Eurasia, India and North America, and marine environments. Two hypotheses were proposed to explain this distribution; in the first, vicariance would have shaped the current geographical distribution and, in the second, extinctions constrained a previously widespread distribution. Here, we aim to reconstruct pleurodiran biogeographic history and diversification patterns based on a new phylogenetic hypothesis recovered from the analysis of the largest morphological dataset yet compiled for the lineage, testing which biogeographical process prevailed during its evolutionary history. The resulting topology generally agrees with previous hypotheses of the group and shows that most diversification shifts were related to the exploration of new niches, e.g. littoral or marine radiations. In addition, as other turtles, pleurodires do not seem to have been much affected by either the Cretaceous– Palaeogene or the Eocene–Oligocene mass extinctions. The biogeographic analyses highlight the predominance of both anagenetic and cladogenetic dispersal events and support the importance of transoceanic dispersals as a more common driver of area changes than previously thought, agreeing with previous studies with other non-turtle lineages.Fil: Ferreira, Gabriel S.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil. Senckenberg Centre For Human Evolution And Palaeoenvironment; Alemania. Universität Tübingen; AlemaniaFil: Bronzati Filho, Mario. Bayerische Staatssammlung für Paläontologie und Geologie; AlemaniaFil: Langer, Max C.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Sterli, Juliana. Museo Paleontológico Egidio Feruglio; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentin

Where are you from, stranger? The enigmatic biogeography of North African pond turtles (Emys orbicularis) .

Abstract The European pond turtle (Emys orbicularis) is a Nearctic element in the African fauna and thought to have invaded North Africa from the Iberian Peninsula. All North African populations are currently identified with the subspecies E. o. occidentalis. However, a nearly range-wide sampling in North Africa used for analyses of mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA provides evidence that only Moroccan populations belong to this taxon, while eastern Algerian and Tunisian pond turtles represent an undescribed distinct subspecies. These two taxa are most closely related to E. o. galloitalica with a native distribution along the Mediterranean coast of northern Spain through southern France to western and southern Italy. This group is sister to a clade comprising several mitochondrial lineages and subspecies of E. orbicularis from Central and Eastern Europe plus Asia, and the successive sisters are E. o. hellenica and E. trinacris. Our results suggest that E. orbicularis has been present in North Africa longer than on the Iberian Peninsula and that after an initial invasion of North Africa by pond turtles from an unknown European source region, there was a phase of diversification in North Africa, followed by a later re-invasion of Europe by one of the African lineages. The differentiation of pond turtles in North Africa parallels a general phylogeographic paradigm in amphibians and reptiles, with deeply divergent lineages in the western and eastern Maghreb. Acknowledging their genetic similarity, we propose to synonymize the previously recognized Iberian subspecies E. o. fritzjuergenobsti with E. o. occidentalis sensu stricto. The seriously imperiled Moroccan populations of E. o. occidentalis represent two Management Units different in mitochondrial haplotypes and microsatellite markers. The conservation status of eastern Algerian pond turtles is unclear, while Tunisian populations are endangered. Considering that Algerian and Tunisian pond turtles represent an endemic taxon, their situation throughout the historical range should be surveyed to establish a basis for conservation measures

Pragmatic application of a clinical prediction rule in primary care to identify patients with low back pain with a good prognosis following a brief spinal manipulation intervention

BACKGROUND: Patients with low back pain are frequently encountered in primary care. Although a specific diagnosis cannot be made for most patients, it is likely that sub-groups exist within the larger entity of nonspecific low back pain. One sub-group that has been identified is patients who respond rapidly to spinal manipulation. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between two factors (duration and distribution of symptoms) and prognosis following a spinal manipulation intervention. METHODS: Data were taken from two previously published studies. Patients with low back pain underwent a standardized examination, including assessment of duration of the current symptoms in days, and the distal-most distribution of symptoms. Based on prior research, patients with symptoms of <16 days duration and no symptoms distal to the knee were considered to have a good prognosis following manipulation. All patients underwent up to two sessions of spinal manipulation treatment and a range of motion exercise. Oswestry disability scores were recorded before and after treatment. If ≥ 50% improvement on the Oswestry was achieved, the intervention was considered a success. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio were calculated for the association of the two criteria with the outcome of the treatment. RESULTS: 141 patients (49% female, mean age = 35.5 (± 11.1) years) participated. Mean pre- and post-treatment Oswestry scores were 41.9 (± 10.9) and 24.1 (± 14.2) respectively. Sixty-three subjects (45%) had successful treatment outcomes. The sensitivity of the two criteria was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.43, 0.67), specificity was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.96), and the positive likelihood ratio was 7.2 (95% CI: 3.2, 16.1). CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate that two factors; symptom duration of less than 16 days, and no symptoms extending distal to the knee, were associated with a good outcome with spinal manipulation

Reliability of movement control tests in the lumbar spine

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Movement control dysfunction [MCD] reduces active control of movements. Patients with MCD might form an important subgroup among patients with non specific low back pain. The diagnosis is based on the observation of active movements. Although widely used clinically, only a few studies have been performed to determine the test reliability. The aim of this study was to determine the inter- and intra-observer reliability of movement control dysfunction tests of the lumbar spine.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We videoed patients performing a standardized test battery consisting of 10 active movement tests for motor control in 27 patients with non specific low back pain and 13 patients with other diagnoses but without back pain. Four physiotherapists independently rated test performances as correct or incorrect per observation, blinded to all other patient information and to each other. The study was conducted in a private physiotherapy outpatient practice in Reinach, Switzerland. Kappa coefficients, percentage agreements and confidence intervals for inter- and intra-rater results were calculated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The kappa values for inter-tester reliability ranged between 0.24 – 0.71. Six tests out of ten showed a substantial reliability [k > 0.6]. Intra-tester reliability was between 0.51 – 0.96, all tests but one showed substantial reliability [k > 0.6].</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Physiotherapists were able to reliably rate most of the tests in this series of motor control tasks as being performed correctly or not, by viewing films of patients with and without back pain performing the task.</p

The Nordic back pain subpopulation program: Can low back pain patterns be predicted from the first consultation with a chiropractor? A longitudinal pilot study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is widely believed that non-specific low back pain (LBP) consists of a number of subgroups which should be identified in order to improve treatment effects. In order to identify subgroups, patient characteristics that relate to different outcomes are searched for. However, LBP is often fluctuating or recurring rather than clearly limited in time. Therefore it would be relevant to consider outcome after completed treatment from a longitudinal perspective (describing "course patterns") instead of defining it from an arbitrarily selected end-point.</p> <p>Aims</p> <p>The objectives of this pilot study were to investigate the interobserver reliability of a diagnostic classification system and to evaluate whether diagnostic classes or other baseline characteristics are associated with the LBP course pattern over a period of 18 weeks.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients visiting one of 7 chiropractors because of LBP were classified according to a diagnostic classification system, which includes end-range loading, SI-joint pain provocation tests, neurological examination and tests for muscle tenderness and abnormal nerve tension. In addition, age, gender, duration of pain and presence of leg pain were registered in the patient's file. By weekly SMS-messages on their mobile phones, patients were asked how many days they had LBP the preceding week, and these answers were transformed into pain course patterns and the total number of LBP days.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 110 patients were included and 76 (69%) completed follow-up. Thirty-five patients were examined by two chiropractors. The agreement regarding diagnostic classes was 83% (95% CI: 70 - 96). The diagnostic classes were associated with the pain course patterns and number of LBP days. Patients with disc pain had the highest number of LBP days and patients with muscular pain reported the fewest (35 vs. 12 days, p < 0.01). Men had better outcome than women (17 vs. 29 days, p < 0.01) and patients without leg pain tended to have fewer LBP days than those with leg pain (21 vs.31 days, p = 0.06). Duration of LBP at the first visit was not associated with outcome.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The study indicated that there is a clinically meaningful relationship between diagnostic classes and the course of LBP. This should be evaluated in more depth.</p

Lumbar segmental mobility disorders: comparison of two methods of defining abnormal displacement kinematics in a cohort of patients with non-specific mechanical low back pain

BACKGROUND: Lumbar segmental rigidity (LSR) and lumbar segmental instability (LSI) are believed to be associated with low back pain (LBP), and identification of these disorders is believed to be useful for directing intervention choices. Previous studies have focussed on lumbar segmental rotation and translation, but have used widely varying methodologies. Cut-off points for the diagnosis of LSR & LSI are largely arbitrary. Prevalence of these lumbar segmental mobility disorders (LSMDs) in a non-surgical, primary care LBP population has not been established. METHODS: A cohort of 138 consecutive patients with recurrent or chronic low back pain (RCLBP) were recruited in this prospective, pragmatic, multi-centre study. Consenting patients completed pain and disability rating instruments, and were referred for flexion-extension radiographs. Sagittal angular rotation and sagittal translation of each lumbar spinal motion segment was measured from the radiographs, and compared to a reference range derived from a study of 30 asymptomatic volunteers. In order to define reference intervals for normal motion, and define LSR and LSI, we approached the kinematic data using two different models. The first model used a conventional Gaussian definition, with motion beyond two standard deviations (2sd) from the reference mean at each segment considered diagnostic of rotational LSMD and translational LSMD. The second model used a novel normalised within-subjects approach, based on mean normalised contribution-to-total-lumbar-motion. An LSMD was then defined as present in any segment that contributed motion beyond 2sd from the reference mean contribution-to-normalised-total-lumbar-motion. We described reference intervals for normal segmental mobility, prevalence of LSMDs under each model, and the association of LSMDs with pain and disability. RESULTS: With the exception of the conventional Gaussian definition of rotational LSI, LSMDs were found in statistically significant prevalences in patients with RCLBP. Prevalences at both the segmental and patient level were generally higher using the normalised within-subjects model (2.8 to 16.8% of segments; 23.3 to 35.5% of individuals) compared to the conventional Gaussian model (0 to 15.8%; 4.7 to 19.6%). LSMDs are associated with presence of LBP, however LSMDs do not appear to be strongly associated with higher levels of pain or disability compared to other forms of non-specific LBP. CONCLUSION: LSMDs are a valid means of defining sub-groups within non-specific LBP, in a conservative care population of patients with RCLBP. Prevalence was higher using the normalised within-subjects contribution-to-total-lumbar-motion approach

Could the clinical interpretability of subgroups detected using clustering methods be improved by using a novel two-stage approach?

Background: Recognition of homogeneous subgroups of patients can usefully improve prediction of their outcomes and the targeting of treatment. There are a number of research approaches that have been used to recognise homogeneity in such subgroups and to test their implications. One approach is to use statistical clustering techniques, such as Cluster Analysis or Latent Class Analysis, to detect latent relationships between patient characteristics. Influential patient characteristics can come from diverse domains of health, such as pain, activity limitation, physical impairment, social role participation, psychological factors, biomarkers and imaging. However, such 'whole person' research may result in data-driven subgroups that are complex, difficult to interpret and challenging to recognise clinically. This paper describes a novel approach to applying statistical clustering techniques that may improve the clinical interpretability of derived subgroups and reduce sample size requirements. Methods: This approach involves clustering in two sequential stages. The first stage involves clustering within health domains and therefore requires creating as many clustering models as there are health domains in the available data. This first stage produces scoring patterns within each domain. The second stage involves clustering using the scoring patterns from each health domain (from the first stage) to identify subgroups across all domains. We illustrate this using chest pain data from the baseline presentation of 580 patients. Results: The new two-stage clustering resulted in two subgroups that approximated the classic textbook descriptions of musculoskeletal chest pain and atypical angina chest pain. The traditional single-stage clustering resulted in five clusters that were also clinically recognisable but displayed less distinct differences. Conclusions: In this paper, a new approach to using clustering techniques to identify clinically useful subgroups of patients is suggested. Research designs, statistical methods and outcome metrics suitable for performing that testing are also described. This approach has potential benefits but requires broad testing, in multiple patient samples, to determine its clinical value. The usefulness of the approach is likely to be context-specific, depending on the characteristics of the available data and the research question being asked of it