An Evaluation of Farmer Applications of Deer Damage Controls

Damage to agricultural crops caused by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) continues to be a significant concern of farmers in Michigan and elsewhere in the United States. Policy changes that promise to reduce deer numbers may be long in coming, but better application of available damage control techniques may be an immediate alternative for farmers awaiting relief. Conversations with farmers, extension agents, and wildlife professionals suggest that some damage control techniques are underutilized by Michigan farmers, whereas other techniques are applied with little success despite promising field trials. We investigated producers’ practices to identify common weaknesses in how deer damage controls were being applied so that Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Cooperative Extension personnel could develop programs to improve the effectiveness of these applications. In January 1997, a 6-page questionnaire was mailed to 250 agricultural producers who indicated that they used some form of deer damage control to protect their crops. Producers were queried about specific methods employed, intensity and frequency of applications, fence maintenance, hunting and shooting techniques, deer harvest ratios, integration of techniques, and the perceived effectiveness of controls and/or combinations of techniques. Recreational hunting, shooting permits, and block permits were the control methods used most frequently by respondents. Although 84% of respondents expressed a desire to reduce the deer herd in the vicinity of their farm, most were not contributing effectively to achieving such a reduction through their own hunter management and deer harvest. Results suggest that educational and management opportunities do exist to encourage producers to more systematically apply and integrate available deer damage controls in Michigan

Swespine: the Swedish spine register : The 2012 report.

Swespine, the Swedish National Spine Register, has existed for 20 years and is in general use within the country since over 10 years regarding degenerative lumbar spine disorders. Today there are protocols for registering all disorders of the entire spinal column

The Swedish Spine Register: development, design and utility

The Swedish Spine Register enables monitoring of surgical activities focusing on changes in trends over time, techniques utilized and outcome, when implemented in general clinical practice. Basic requirements for a prosperous register are unity within the profession, mainly patient-based documentation and a well functioning support system. This presentation focuses on the development and design of the register protocol, problems encountered and solutions found underway. Various examples on how the results can be presented and utilized are given as well as validation. Register data demonstrate significant gender differences in lumbar disc herniation surgery with females having more pain, lower quality of life and more pronounced disability preoperatively while improvement after surgery is similar between genders. Quality of life after surgery for degenerative disorders is significantly improved for disc herniation, stenosis, spondylolisthesis and disc degenerative disorders. Over the last 10 years, surgical treatment for spinal stenosis has increased gradually while disc herniation surgery decreases regarding yearly number of procedures. An added function to the register enables more complex prospective clinical studies to include register data together with data suitable for the individual study. A common core set of demographic, surgical and outcome parameters would enable comparisons of clinical studies within and between nations

Cost effectiveness of disc prosthesis versus lumbar fusion in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up

This randomized controlled health economic study assesses the cost-effectiveness of the concept of total disc replacement (TDR) (Charité/Prodisc/Maverick) when compared with the concept of instrumented lumbar fusion (FUS) [posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) /posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)]. Social and healthcare perspectives after 2 years are reported. In all, 152 patients were randomized to either TDR (n = 80) or lumbar FUS (n = 72). Cost to society (total mean cost/patient, Swedish kronor = SEK, standard deviation) for TDR was SEK 599,560 (400,272), and for lumbar FUS SEK 685,919 (422,903) (ns). The difference was not significant: SEK 86,359 (−45,605 to 214,332). TDR was significantly less costly from a healthcare perspective, SEK 22,996 (1,202 to 43,055). Number of days on sick leave among those who returned to work was 185 (146) in the TDR group, and 252 (189) in the FUS group (ns). Using EQ-5D, the total gain in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over 2 years was 0.41 units for TDR and 0.40 units for FUS (ns). Based on EQ-5D, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of using TDR instead of FUS was difficult to analyze due to the “non-difference” in treatment outcome, which is why cost/QALY was not meaningful to define. Using cost-effectiveness probabilistic analysis, the net benefit (with CI) was found to be SEK 91,359 (−73,643 to 249,114) (ns). We used the currency of 2006 where 1 EURO = 9.26 SEK and 1 USD = 7.38 SEK. It was not possible to state whether TDR or FUS is more cost-effective after 2 years. Since disc replacement and lumbar fusion are based on different conceptual approaches, it is important to follow these results over time

Comparison of standard fusion with a "topping off" system in lumbar spine surgery: a protocol for a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Fusion of lumbar spine segments is a well-established therapy for many pathologies. The procedure changes the biomechanics of the spine. Initial clinical benefits may be outweighed by ensuing damage to the adjacent segments. Various surgical devices and techniques have been developed to prevent this deterioration. "Topping off" systems combine rigid fusion with a flexible pedicle screw system to prevent adjacent segment disease (ASD). To date, there is no convincing evidence that these devices provide any patient benefits.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The study is designed as a randomized, therapy-controlled trial in a clinical care setting at a university hospital. Patients presenting to the outpatient clinic with degenerative disc disease or spondylolisthesis will be assessed against study inclusion and exclusion criteria. After randomization, the control group will undergo conventional fusion. The intervention group will undergo fusion with a supplemental flexible pedicle screw system to protect the adjacent segment ("topping off").</p> <p>Follow-up examination will take place immediately after treatment during hospital stay, after 6 weeks, and then after 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. Subsequently, ongoing assessments will be performed annually.</p> <p>Outcome measurements will include quality of life and pain assessments using questionnaires (SF-36™, ODI, COMI). In addition, clinical and radiologic ASD, work-related disability, and duration of work disability will be assessed. Inpatient and 6-month mortality, surgery-related data (e.g., intraoperative complications, blood loss, length of incision, surgical duration), postoperative complications, adverse events, and serious adverse events will be documented and monitored throughout the study. Cost-effectiveness analysis will also be provided.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>New hybrid systems might improve the outcome of lumbar spine fusion. To date, there is no convincing published data on effectiveness or safety of these topping off systems. High quality data is required to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of topping off devices. If only because these devices are quite expensive compared to conventional fusion implants, nonessential use should be avoided. In fact, these high costs necessitate efforts by health care providers to evaluate the effects of these implants. Randomized clinical trials are highly recommended to evaluate the benefits or harm to the patient.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01224379">NCT01224379</a></p

Differences across health care systems in outcome and cost-utility of surgical and conservative treatment of chronic low back pain: a study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is little evidence on differences across health care systems in choice and outcome of the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) with spinal surgery and conservative treatment as the main options. At least six randomised controlled trials comparing these two options have been performed; they show conflicting results without clear-cut evidence for superior effectiveness of any of the evaluated interventions and could not address whether treatment effect varied across patient subgroups. Cost-utility analyses display inconsistent results when comparing surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP. Due to its higher feasibility, we chose to conduct a prospective observational cohort study.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study aims to examine if</p> <p>1. Differences across health care systems result in different treatment outcomes of surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP</p> <p>2. Patient characteristics (work-related, psychological factors, etc.) and co-interventions (physiotherapy, cognitive behavioural therapy, return-to-work programs, etc.) modify the outcome of treatment for CLBP</p> <p>3. Cost-utility in terms of quality-adjusted life years differs between surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP.</p> <p>This study will recruit 1000 patients from orthopaedic spine units, rehabilitation centres, and pain clinics in Switzerland and New Zealand. Effectiveness will be measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at baseline and after six months. The change in ODI will be the primary endpoint of this study.</p> <p>Multiple linear regression models will be used, with the change in ODI from baseline to six months as the dependent variable and the type of health care system, type of treatment, patient characteristics, and co-interventions as independent variables. Interactions will be incorporated between type of treatment and different co-interventions and patient characteristics. Cost-utility will be measured with an index based on EQol-5D in combination with cost data.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study will provide evidence if differences across health care systems in the outcome of treatment of CLBP exist. It will classify patients with CLBP into different clinical subgroups and help to identify specific target groups who might benefit from specific surgical or conservative interventions. Furthermore, cost-utility differences will be identified for different groups of patients with CLBP. Main results of this study should be replicated in future studies on CLBP.</p

Emergence of rationally designed therapeutic strategies for breast cancer targeting DNA repair mechanisms

Accumulating evidence suggests that many cancers, including BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated breast cancers, are deficient in DNA repair processes. Both hereditary and sporadic breast cancers have been found to have significant downregulation of repair factors. This has provided opportunities to exploit DNA repair deficiencies, whether acquired or inherited. Here, we review efforts to exploit DNA repair deficiencies in tumors, with a focus on breast cancer. A variety of agents, including PARP (poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase) inhibitors, are currently under investigation in clinical trials and available results will be reviewed

Aldo Leopold: A Sand County Almanac

This lecture on Aldo Leopold\u27s A Sand County Almanac, delivered at Lawrence University on January 22, 2003, was designed for students and faculty in the college\u27s Freshman Studies program. Freshman Studies, a multidisciplinary introduction to the liberal arts, has been the cornerstone of the Lawrence curriculum for over fifty years. The lecturer, Peter Fritzell, is professor of English and the Patricia Hamar Boldt Professor of Liberal Studies at Lawrence. Professor Fritzell holds the M.A. and the Ph.D. from Stanford University. He has published widely in the area of nature writing