Pediatr Nephrol

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines advocate use of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) over central venous catheter (CVC) for children starting hemodialysis (HD). European data on current practice, determinants of access choice and switches, patient survival, and access to transplantation are limited. METHODS: We included incident patients from 18 European countries who started HD from 2000 to 2013 for whom vascular access type was reported to the ESPN/ERA-EDTA Registry. Data were evaluated using descriptive statistics, logistic and Cox regression models, and cumulative incidence competing risk analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-three (55.1%) of 713 children started HD with a CVC and were more often females, younger, had more often an unknown diagnosis, glomerulonephritis, or vasculitis, and lower hemoglobin and height-SDS at HD initiation. AVF patients were 91% less likely to switch to a second access, and two-year patient survival was 99.6% (CVC, 97.2%). Children who started with an AVF were less likely to receive a living donor transplant (adjusted HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.54) and more likely to receive a deceased donor transplant (adjusted HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.93), even after excluding patients who died or were transplanted in the first 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: CVC remains the most frequent type of vascular access in European children commencing HD. Our results suggest that the choice for CVC is influenced by the time of referral, rapid onset of end-stage renal disease, young age, and an expected short time to transplantation. The role of vascular access type on the pattern between living and deceased donation in subsequent transplantation requires further study

Circadian Variations in Eyewitness Identifications: Identification Performance is not Affected by Time-of-day Optimality

The circadian rhythm regulates arousal levels throughout the day and determines optimal periods for engaging in mental activities. Individuals differ in the time of day at which they reach their peak: Morning-type individuals are at their best in the morning and evening types perform better in the evening. Performance in recall and recognition of non-facial stimuli is generally superior at an individual’s circadian peak. In two studies (Ns = 103 and 324), we tested the effect of time-of-testing optimality on eyewitness identification performance. Morning- and evening-type participants viewed stimulus films depicting staged crimes and made identification decisions from target-present and target-absent lineups either at their optimal or non-optimal time-of-day. We expected that participants would make more accurate identification decisions and that the confidence-accuracy and decision time-accuracy relationships would be stronger at optimal compared to non-optimal time of day. In Experiment 1, identification accuracy was unexpectedly superior at non-optimal compared to optimal time of day in target-present lineups. In Experiment 2, identification accuracy did not differ between the optimal and non-optimal time of day. Contrary to our expectations, testing at optimal time of day did not consistently strengthen the confidence-accuracy and decision time-accuracy relationships

Using a model statement to enhance the verifiability approach

The present experiment investigated to what extent providing participants with a model statement influences the ability of the verifiability approach to detect deception. Participants gave a true and false statement about a negative autobiographical event, with half of the participants receiving a detailed model statement just before giving their statement. We expected false statements to include more non-verifiable and less verifiable details than true statements, and that providing a model statement would increase these differences. False statements indeed included more non-verifiable details than truthful statements but did not differ in number of verifiable details. True statements included a higher ratio of verifiable details. The model statement encouraged participants to give a longer and more detailed statement. However, it prompted participants to increase the number of included verifiable – and not non-verifiable – details, regardless of veracity. Using a model statement did not influence the discriminability of the verifiability approach