Barrows in the cultural imagination of later Medieval England

When history has gone beyond memory, and where there is little or no written record, then objects in the landscape are used and interpreted in order both to understand the past, and to tie the past to the present. This thesis explores the places of barrows in the cultural imagination of later medieval England, following the interdisciplinary approaches of Sarah Semple (Perceptions of the Prehistoric in Anglo-Saxon England: Religion, Ritual, and Rulership in the Landscape, 2013) and Anwen Cooper (Other Types of Meaning: Relationships between Round Barrows and Landscapes from 1500 BC-AC 1086, 2016). This thesis identifies and examines a range of historical sources to explore an area of research which has not previously been studied in depth. Whilst it is the case that barrows appear in texts relatively infrequently during the later medieval period, this thesis argues that these references were included specifically because they had significance and meaning both for the writer and the intended audience. Those writers who included barrows in their work anticipated that their intended audience would be able to recognise them, and to be aware of their significance. The intended audience for many of the texts discussed in this thesis was primarily aristocratic elites and the clergy, and therefore the texts speak to their interests and concerns, with barrows often being connected to themes of exemplary kingship. The past is also used to talk about the present; here barrows become symbols of the past, both ‘historic’, and at times mythical, having links to the supernatural. They act as focal points through which wider, contemporary issues can be explored, thus allowing authors access to the past and to a landscape onto which they can project the concerns of the present, and therefore talk about them more freel

Therapeutic Validity and Effectiveness of Preoperative Exercise on Functional Recovery after Joint Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Our aim was to develop a rating scale to assess the therapeutic validity of therapeutic exercise programmes. By use of this rating scale we investigated the therapeutic validity of therapeutic exercise in patients awaiting primary total joint replacement (TJR). Finally, we studied the association between therapeutic validity of preoperative therapeutic exercise and its effectiveness in terms of postoperative functional recovery. Methods: (Quasi) randomised clinical trials on preoperative therapeutic exercise in adults awaiting TJR on postoperative recovery of functioning within three months after surgery were identified through database and reference screening. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and therapeutic validity. Therapeutic validity of the interventions was assessed with a nine-itemed, expert-based rating scale (scores range from 0 to 9; score ≥6 reflecting therapeutic validity), developed in a four-round Delphi study. Effects were pooled using a random-effects model and meta-regression was used to study the influence of therapeutic validity. Results: Of the 7,492 articles retrieved, 12 studies (737 patients) were included. None of the included studies demonstrated therapeutic validity and two demonstrated low risk of bias. Therapeutic exercise was not associated with 1) observed functional recovery during the hospital stay (Standardised Mean Difference [SMD]: −1.19; 95%-confidence interval [CI], −2.46 to 0.08); 2) observed recovery within three months of surgery (SMD: −0.15; 95%-CI, −0.42 to 0.12); and 3) self-reported recovery within three months of surgery (SMD −0.07; 95%-CI, −0.35 to 0.21) compared with control participants. Meta-regression showed no statistically significant relationship between therapeutic validity and pooled-effects. Conclusion: Preoperative therapeutic exercise for TJR did not demonstrate beneficial effects on postoperative functional recovery. However, poor therapeutic validity of the therapeutic exercise programmes may have hampered potentially beneficial effects, since none of the studies met the predetermined quality criteria. Future review studies on therapeutic exercise should address therapeutic validity. (aut.ref.

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome