The isolation and characterisation of Xylophilus ampelinus

Bacterial blight, caused by Xylophilus ampelinus (PANAGOPOULUS) WILLEMS et al. is a destructive disease of grapevine (Vitis vinifera). Incubation of cuttings at 15 °C for three days under moist conditions significantly increased the number of isolated X. ampelinus colonies. This treatment facilitates the isolation of the pathogen from infected material from which it could previously not be isolated

Hearing the voices of children: self-reported information on children's experiences during research procedures

__Introduction:__ In paediatric research, there is a tension between what you can ask from a child and what is needed for the development of evidence-based treatments. To find an optimal balance in conducting clinical research and protecting the child, it is necessary to have empirical data on children's experiences. Until now, there are scarce empirical data on the experiences from the perspective of the child. In this manuscript, we describe the protocol of a twophase study measuring children's self-reported experiences during research procedures. __Methods and analysis:__ In the first phase of our study, we aim to interview approximately 40 children (6-18 years) about their self-reported experiences during research procedures. In the second phase, we will develop a questionnaire to measure children's experiences during research procedures in a quantitative way. We will use the interview outcomes for the development of this questionnaire. Next, we will measure the experiences of children during seven research procedures with this questionnaire. A one-month followup is conducted to investigate the emotional impact of the research procedures on the children. Children will be recruited from different research studies in three academic children's hospitals in the Netherlands. __Ethics and dissemination:__ The ethics committee of the VU University medical center evaluated both studies and indicated that there was no risk/discomfort associated, stating that both phases are exempt from getting

Should all hip and knee prosthetic joints be aspirated prior to revision surgery?

Aims It is essential to exclude a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) prior to revision surgery. It is recommended to routinely aspirate the joint before surgery. However, this may not be necessary in a subgroup of patients. The aim of our study was to investigate if specific clinical and implant characteristics could be identified to rule out a PJI prior to revision surgery. Methods We retrospectively evaluated clinical and implant characteristics of patients who underwent a hip or knee revision surgery between October 2015 and October 2018. Patients were diagnosed with a PJI according to the MSIS diagnostic criteria. Results A total of 156 patients were analyzed, including 107 implants that were revised because of prosthetic loosening and 49 because of mechanical failure (i.e. instability, malalignment or malpositioning). No PJI was diagnosed in the group with mechanical failure. In the prosthetic loosening group, 20 of 107 were diagnosed with a PJI (19%). Although there was a significantly lower chance of having a PJI with an implant age of > 5 years combined with a CRP < 5 mg/L, an infection was still present in 3 out of 39 cases (8%). Conclusion Implants with solely mechanical failure without signs of loosening and low inflammatory parameters probably do not require a synovial fluid aspiration. These results need to be confirmed in a larger cohort of patients. In case of prosthetic loosening, all joints need to be aspirated before surgery as no specific characteristic could be identified to rule out an infection

The development of the DISCO-RC for measuring children's discomfort during research procedures

Background: There is a need for data on children's self-reported discomfort in clinical research, helping ethics committees to make their evaluation of discomfort described in study protocols evidence-based. Since there is no appropriate instrument to measure children's discomfort during medical research procedures, we aimed to develop a generic, short and child-friendly instrument: the DISCO-RC questionnaire (DISCOmfort in Research with Children). Methods: This article describes the six steps of the development of the DISCO-RC. First, we updated a literature search on children's self-reported discomfort in clinical research to get insight in what words are used to measure discomfort (step 1). Subsequently, we interviewed 46 children (6-18years) participating in research to get insight into important forms of discomfort for children (step 2), and asked them about their preferred response option for measuring discomfort (step 3). Next, we consulted nine paediatric research professionals from various backgrounds for input on the content and feasibility of the DISCO-RC (step 4). Based on the previous steps, we developed a draft version of the DISCO-RC, which we discussed with the professionals. The DISCO-RC was then pretested in 25 children to ensure face-validity from the child's perspective and feasibility (step 5). Finally, validity, reliability and internal consistency were tested (step 6). Results: The search-update revealed several words used for measuring discomfort in research (e.g. 'worries', 'unpleasantness'). The interviews gave insight into important forms of discomfort for children in research (e.g. 'pain', 'boredom'). Children preferred a 5-point Likert scale as response option for the DISCO-RC. The experts recommended a short, digital instrument involving different forms of discomfort, and measuring discomfort of individual research procedures. Pretesting of the DISCO-RC resulted in a few layout changes, and feedback from the children confirmed the feasibility of the DISCO-RC. Convergent validity and test-retest reliability were acceptable. Internal consistency based on item-rest correlations and Cronbach's alpha were low, as expected. Conclusions: The DISCO-RC is a generic, practical and psychometrically sound instrument for measuring children's discomfort during research procedures. It contributes to make the evaluation of discomfort in paediatric research evidence-based. Therefore, we recommend including the DISCO-RC as standard component of paediatric research studies

The child's perspective on discomfort during medical research procedures: a descriptive study

Objective The evaluation of discomfort in paediatric research is scarcely evidence-based. In this study, we make a start in describing children's self-reported discomfort during common medical research procedures and compare this with discomfort during dental check-ups which can be considered as a reference level of a ‘minimal discomfort’ medical procedure. We exploratory study whether there are associations between age, anxiety-proneness, gender, medical condition, previous experiences and discomfort. We also describe children's suggestions for reducing discomfort. Design Cross-sectional descriptive study. Setting Paediatric research at three academic hospitals. Patients 357 children with and without illnesses (8–18 years, mean=10.6 years) were enrolled: 307 from paediatric research studies and 50 from dental care. Main outcome measures We measured various generic forms of discomfort (nervousness, annoyance, pain, fright, boredom, tiredness) due to six common research procedures: buccal swabs, MRI scans, pulmonary function tests, skin prick tests, ultrasound imaging and venepunctures. Results Most children reported limited discomfort during the research procedures (means: 1–2.6 on a scale from 1 to 5). Compared with dental check-ups, buccal swab tests, skin prick tests and ultrasound imaging were less discomforting, while MRI scans, venepunctures and pulmonary function tests caused a similar degree of discomfort. 60.3% of the children suggested providing distraction by showing movies to reduce discomfort. The exploratory analyses suggested a positive association between anxiety-proneness and discomfort. Conclusions The findings of this study support the acceptability of participation of children in the studied research procedures, which stimulates evidence-based research practice. Furthermore, the present study can be considered as a first step in providing benchmarks for discomfort of procedures in paediatric research

Children's self reported discomforts as participants in clinical research.

There is little empirical evidence on children's subjective experiences of discomfort during clinical research procedures. Therefore, Institutional Review Boards have limited empirical information to guide their decision-making on discomforts for children in clinical research. To get more insight into what children's discomforts are during clinical research procedures, we interviewed a group of children on this topic and also asked for suggestions to reduce possible discomforts. Forty-six children (aged 6-18) participating in clinical research studies (including needle-related procedures, food provocation tests, MRI scans, pulmonary function tests, questionnaires) were interviewed about their experiences during the research procedures. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interviews. The discomforts of the interviewed children could be divided into two main groups: physical and mental discomforts. The majority experienced physical discomforts during the research procedures: pain, shortness of breath, nausea, itchiness, and feeling hungry, which were often caused by needle procedures, some pulmonary procedures, and food provocation tests. Mental discomforts included anxiousness because of anticipated pain and not knowing what to expect from a research procedure, boredom and tiredness during lengthy research procedures and waiting, and embarrassment during Tanner staging. Children's suggestions to reduce the discomforts of the research procedures were providing distraction (e.g. watching a movie or listening to music), providing age-appropriate information and shortening the duration of lengthy procedures. Our study shows that children can experience various discomforts during research procedures, and it provides information about how these discomforts can be reduced according to them. Further research is needed with larger samples to study the number of children that experience these mentioned discomforts during research procedures in a quantitative wa