Comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography coupled to high resolution time-of-flight mass spectrometry for screening of organohalogenated compounds in cat hair

The coupling of comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography with high-resolution time-of-flight mass spectrometry offers the best separation efficiency combined with accurate mass measurements over a wide mass range. The tremendous power of this screening tool is illustrated by trace qualitative screening analysis of organohalogenated compounds (OHCs) in pet cat hair. Tentative identification was supported by mass spectral database searches and elemental formula prediction from the experimentally determined accurate mass data. This screening approach resulted in the first tentative identification of pentabromoethylbenzene, decabromodiphenyl ethane, hexabromocyclododecane, trisbromoneopentyl alcohol, tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate and tris(2-chloroisopropyl)phosphate in the South African indoor environment. A total of seventy-two OHCs were identified in the samples and include known flame retardants, such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and legacy contaminants such as polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorine, organophosphorous and pyrethroid pesticides. The results obtained from cat hair indicate that these pets are exposed to complex mixtures of OHCs and the detection of these compounds suggests that non-invasive cat hair samples can be used to model indoor exposure with reference to external deposition of OHCs present in the air and dust surrounding people. Toddlers share the same environment as pet cats and therefore also the same health risks

Parodie et carnavalisation : l’exemple de Hubert Aquin

One of the defining features of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) is the emphasis on reporting outcomes that are meaningful to patients. Accelerating progress toward this objective could be achieved through increased development and uptake of core outcome sets (COS), which are intended to represent a standardized minimum set of outcomes that should bemeasured and reported in all clinical trials in a specific condition. The level of activity around COS has increased significantly over recent years, however there are many important clinical conditions for which high quality COS havenot been developed. We believe that meaningful progress toward the goals behind the significant investments in PCOR will depend on sustained attention to the challenges of COS development and uptake

A review of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register reveals inconsistency in the choice and measurement of SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes in prevention trials

Background: Multiple studies are evaluating how to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Interventions are wide ranging and include vaccines, prophylactic drugs, public health safety measures, and behavioural interventions. Heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported is leading to research waste and inefficiency, slowing worldwide identification and implementation of effective methods to prevent infection. A core outcome set (COS) for studies of interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has recently been developed, identifying infection as a critical outcome to measure. This paper examines how SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes are measured in registered COVID-19 prevention trials and considers how this can be improved. Methods: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify and review SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes in prevention trials, including the rationale for choice of outcome measurement. We included phase 3 and 4 trials of COVID-19 prevention interventions. Early phase trials and studies relating to the transmission, treatment or management of COVID-19 were excluded. Results: We identified 430 entries in the register, of which 199 unique prevention trials were included across eight settings and 12 intervention types. Fifteen (8%) trials did not include any SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes. The remaining 184 (92%) studies included a total of 268 SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes, of which 32 (17%) did not specify how infection would be measured. Testing (i.e. formal diagnostic test) as a standalone method for determining infection was used in 57 (31%) trials, whereas defining infection by symptoms alone was used in 16 (9%) trials. All other trials (n=79, 43%) included multiple infection outcomes, defined in different ways. Discussion: There is considerable variation in how SARS-CoV-2 infection is measured within and across different interventions and settings. Furthermore, few studies report the rationale for outcome selection and measurement. Better transparency and standardisation of SARS-CoV-2 infection measurement is needed for the findings from prevention trials to inform decision-making.</ns3:p

Mechanisms of Psychological Distress following War in the Former Yugoslavia: The Role of Interpersonal Sensitivity

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.This study was funded by a grant from the European Commission, contract number INCO-CT-2004-509176. AN was supported by a Clinical Early Career Research Fellowship (113295) and a Project Grant (104288

Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting The COS-STAR Statement

Background Core outcome sets (COS) can enhance the relevance of research by ensuring that outcomes of importance to health service users and other people making choices about health care in a particular topic area are measured routinely. Over 200 COS to date have been developed, but the clarity of these reports is suboptimal. COS studies will not achieve their goal if reports of COS are not complete and transparent. Methods and Findings In recognition of these issues, an international group that included experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives developed the Core Outcome Set–STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) Statement as a reporting guideline for COS studies. The developmental process consisted of an initial reporting item generation stage and a two-round Delphi survey involving nearly 200 participants representing key stakeholder groups, followed by a consensus meeting. The COS-STAR Statement consists of a checklist of 18 items considered essential for transparent and complete reporting in all COS studies. The checklist items focus on the introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of a manuscript describing the development of a particular COS. A limitation of the COS-STAR Statement is that it was developed without representative views of low- and middle-income countries. COS have equal relevance to studies conducted in these areas, and, subsequently, this guideline may need to evolve over time to encompass any additional challenges from developing COS in these areas. Conclusions With many ongoing COS studies underway, the COS-STAR Statement should be a helpful resource to improve the reporting of COS studies for the benefit of all COS users

Recovery from Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms: A Qualitative Study of Attributions in Survivors of War

This study was funded by a grant from the European Commission, contract number INCO-CT-2004-50917

The COMET Handbook: version 1.0

The selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare the effects of different interventions directly. For the findings to influence policy and practice, the outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. It is now widely acknowledged that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. Researchers are increasingly addressing this issue through the development and use of a core outcome set, an agreed standardised collection of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area. Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for guidance on the development, implementation, evaluation and updating of core outcome sets. This Handbook, developed by the COMET Initiative, brings together current thinking and methodological research regarding those issues. We recommend a four-step process to develop a core outcome set. The aim is to update the contents of the Handbook as further research is identified

Real-World Evaluation of the Feasibility, Acceptability and Safety of a Remote, Self-Management Parkinson’s Disease Care Pathway: A Healthcare Improvement Initiative

Background: There is significant unmet need for effective and efficiently delivered care for people with Parkinson’s disease (PwP). We undertook a service improvement initiative to co-develop and implement a new care pathway, Home Based Care (HBC), based on supported self-management, remote monitoring and the ability to trigger a healthcare contact when needed. Objective: To evaluate feasibility, acceptability and safety of Home Based Care. Methods: We evaluated data from the first 100 patients on HBC for 6 months. Patient monitoring, performed at baseline and 6-monthly, comprised motor (MDS-UPDRS II and accelerometer), non-motor (NMSQ, PDSS-2, HADS) and quality of life (PDQ) measures. Care quality was audited against Parkinson’s UK national audit standards. Process measures captured feasibility. Acceptability was assessed using a mixed-methods approach comprising questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Results: Between October 2019 and January 2021, 108 PwP were enrolled onto HBC, with data from 100 being available at 6 months. Over 90% of all questionnaires were returned, 97% were complete or had &lt; 3 missing items. Reporting and communications occurred within agreed timeframes. Compared with baseline, after 6m on HBC, PD symptoms were stable; more PwP felt listened to (90% vs. 79%) and able to seek help (79% vs. 68%). HBC met 93% of national audit criteria. Key themes from the interviews included autonomy and empowerment. Conclusions: We have demonstrated acceptability, feasibility and safety of our novel remotely delivered Parkinson’s care pathway. Ensuring scalability will widen its reach and realize its benefits for underserved communities, enabling formal comparisons with standard care and cost-effectiveness evaluation