Radiographic assessment of the femorotibial joint of the CCLT rabbit experimental model of osteoarthritis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purposes of the study were to determine the relevance and validity of in vivo non-invasive radiographic assessment of the CCLT (Cranial Cruciate Ligament Transection) rabbit model of osteoarthritis (OA) and to estimate the pertinence, reliability and reproducibility of a radiographic OA (ROA) grading scale and associated radiographic atlas.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In vivo non-invasive extended non weight-bearing radiography of the rabbit femorotibial joint was standardized. Two hundred and fifty radiographs from control and CCLT rabbits up to five months after surgery were reviewed by three readers. They subsequently constructed an original semi-quantitative grading scale as well as an illustrative atlas of individual ROA feature for the medial compartment. To measure agreements, five readers independently scored the same radiographic sample using this atlas and three of them performed a second reading. To evaluate the pertinence of the ROA grading scale, ROA results were compared with gross examination in forty operated and ten control rabbits.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Radiographic osteophytes of medial femoral condyles and medial tibial condyles were scored on a four point scale and dichotomously for osteophytes of medial fabella. Medial joint space width was scored as normal, reduced or absent. Each ROA features was well correlated with gross examination (p < 0.001). ICCs of each ROA features demonstrated excellent agreement between readers and within reading. Global ROA score gave the highest ICCs value for between (ICC 0.93; CI 0.90-0.96) and within (ICC ranged from 0.94 to 0.96) observer agreements. Among all individual ROA features, medial joint space width scoring gave the highest overall reliability and reproducibility and was correlated with both meniscal and cartilage macroscopic lesions (r_s= 0.68 and r_s= 0.58, p < 0.001 respectively). Radiographic osteophytes of the medial femoral condyle gave the lowest agreements while being well correlated with the macroscopic osteophytes (r_s= 0.64, p < 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Non-invasive in vivo radiography of the rabbit femorotibial joint is feasible, relevant and allows a reproducible grading of experimentally induced OA lesion. The radiographic grading scale and atlas presented could be used as a template for in vivo non invasive grading of ROA in preclinical studies and could allow future comparisons between studies.</p

Systematic review of methods used in meta-analyses where a primary outcome is an adverse or unintended event

addresses: Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, St Luke's Campus, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. [email protected]: PMCID: PMC3528446types: Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't© 2012 Warren et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Adverse consequences of medical interventions are a source of concern, but clinical trials may lack power to detect elevated rates of such events, while observational studies have inherent limitations. Meta-analysis allows the combination of individual studies, which can increase power and provide stronger evidence relating to adverse events. However, meta-analysis of adverse events has associated methodological challenges. The aim of this study was to systematically identify and review the methodology used in meta-analyses where a primary outcome is an adverse or unintended event, following a therapeutic intervention

Beyond the Evidence of the New Hypertension Guidelines. Blood pressure measurement – is it good enough for accurate diagnosis of hypertension? Time might be in, for a paradigm shift (I)

Despite widespread availability of a large body of evidence in the area of hypertension, the translation of that evidence into viable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of health care is very difficult, sometimes to the point of questionable acceptability and overall credibility of the guidelines advocating those recommendations. The scientific community world-wide and especially professionals interested in the topic of hypertension are witnessing currently an unprecedented debate over the issue of appropriateness of using different drugs/drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. An endless supply of recent and less recent "drug-news", some in support of, others against the current guidelines, justifying the use of selected types of drug treatment or criticising other, are coming out in the scientific literature on an almost weekly basis. The latest of such debate (at the time of writing this paper) pertains the safety profile of ARBs vs ACE inhibitors. To great extent, the factual situation has been fuelled by the new hypertension guidelines (different for USA, Europe, New Zeeland and UK) through, apparently small inconsistencies and conflicting messages, that might have generated substantial and perpetuating confusion among both prescribing physicians and their patients, regardless of their country of origin. The overwhelming message conveyed by most guidelines and opinion leaders is the widespread use of diuretics as first-line agents in all patients with blood pressure above a certain cut-off level and the increasingly aggressive approach towards diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. This, apparently well-justified, logical and easily comprehensible message is unfortunately miss-obeyed by most physicians, on both parts of the Atlantic. Amazingly, the message assumes a universal simplicity of both diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, while ignoring several hypertension-specific variables, commonly known to have high level of complexity, such as: - accuracy of recorded blood pressure and the great inter-observer variability, - diversity in the competency and training of diagnosing physician, - individual patient/disease profile with highly subjective preferences, - difficulty in reaching consensus among opinion leaders, - pharmaceutical industry's influence, and, nonetheless, - the large variability in the efficacy and safety of the antihypertensive drugs. The present 2-series article attempts to identify and review possible causes that might have, at least in part, generated the current healthcare anachronism (I); to highlight the current trend to account for the uncertainties related to the fixed blood pressure cut-off point and the possible solutions to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (II)

A Comprehensive Review of MDMA and GHB: Two Common Club Drugs

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/90303/1/phco.21.20.1486.34472.pd

EnerVMAS: Virtual Agent Organizations to Optimize Energy Consumption Using Intelligent Temperature Calibration

International audienc