Communicating with people living with dementia who are nonverbal: the creation of Adaptive Interaction

Loss of verbal language production makes people with dementia appear unreachable. We previously presented a case study applying nonverbal communication techniques with a lady with dementia who could no longer speak, which we termed Adaptive Interaction. The current small-n study examines the applicability of Adaptive Interaction as a general tool for uncovering the communication repertoires of non-verbal individuals living with dementia. Communicative responses of 30 interaction sessions were coded and analysed in two conditions: Standard (Baseline) and Adaptive Interaction (Intervention). All participants retained the ability to interact plus a unique communication repertoire comprising a variety of nonverbal components, spanning eye gaze, emotion expression, and movement. In comparison to Baseline sessions, Intervention sessions were characterised by more smiling, looking at ME and imitation behaviour from the people with dementia. These findings allude to the potential of Adaptive Interaction as the basis for interacting with people living with dementia who can no longer speak

Kuhnian revolutions in neuroscience: the role of tool development.

The terms "paradigm" and "paradigm shift" originated in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. A paradigm can be defined as the generally accepted concepts and practices of a field, and a paradigm shift its replacement in a scientific revolution. A paradigm shift results from a crisis caused by anomalies in a paradigm that reduce its usefulness to a field. Claims of paradigm shifts and revolutions are made frequently in the neurosciences. In this article I will consider neuroscience paradigms, and the claim that new tools and techniques rather than crises have driven paradigm shifts. I will argue that tool development has played a minor role in neuroscience revolutions.The work received no fundin

International Consensus Statement on Rhinology and Allergy: Rhinosinusitis

Background: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR‐RS‐2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence‐based findings of the document. Methods: ICAR‐RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence‐based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence‐based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results: ICAR‐RS‐2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence‐based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion: This ICAR‐RS‐2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence‐based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS

NASHA hyaluronic acid vs. methylprednisolone for knee osteoarthritis: a prospective, multi-centre, randomized, non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare NASHA hyaluronic acid gel as single-injection intra-articular (IA) treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA) against methylprednisolone acetate (MPA). DESIGN: This was a prospective, multi-centre, randomized, active-controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority clinical trial. A unique, open-label extension phase (OLE) was undertaken to answer further important clinical questions. Subjects with painful unilateral knee OA were treated and followed for 26 weeks (blinded phase). All patients attending the clinic at 26 weeks were offered NASHA treatment, with a subsequent 26-week follow-up period (extension phase). The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of NASHA vs MPA in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain responder rate (percentage of patients with ≥40% improvement from baseline in WOMAC pain score and an absolute improvement of ≥5 points) at 12 weeks. RESULTS: In total, 442 participants were enrolled. The primary objective was met, with NASHA producing a non-inferior response rate vs MPA at 12 weeks (NASHA: 44.6%; MPA: 46.2%; difference [95% CI]: 1.6% [-11.2%; +7.9%]). Effect size for WOMAC pain, physical function and stiffness scores favoured NASHA over MPA from 12 to 26 weeks. In response to NASHA treatment at 26 weeks, sustained improvements were seen in WOMAC outcomes irrespective of initial treatment. No serious device-related adverse events (AEs) were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that single-injection NASHA was well tolerated and non-inferior to MPA at 12 weeks. The benefit of NASHA was maintained to 26 weeks while that of MPA declined. An injection of NASHA at 26 weeks conferred long-term improvements without increased sensitivity or risk of complications. STUDY IDENTIFIER: NCT01209364 (www.clinicaltrials.gov)

NASHA hyaluronic acid vs. methylprednisolone for knee osteoarthritis: a prospective, multi-centre, randomized, non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare NASHA hyaluronic acid gel as single-injection intra-articular (IA) treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA) against methylprednisolone acetate (MPA). DESIGN: This was a prospective, multi-centre, randomized, active-controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority clinical trial. A unique, open-label extension phase (OLE) was undertaken to answer further important clinical questions. Subjects with painful unilateral knee OA were treated and followed for 26 weeks (blinded phase). All patients attending the clinic at 26 weeks were offered NASHA treatment, with a subsequent 26-week follow-up period (extension phase). The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of NASHA vs MPA in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain responder rate (percentage of patients with ≥40% improvement from baseline in WOMAC pain score and an absolute improvement of ≥5 points) at 12 weeks. RESULTS: In total, 442 participants were enrolled. The primary objective was met, with NASHA producing a non-inferior response rate vs MPA at 12 weeks (NASHA: 44.6%; MPA: 46.2%; difference [95% CI]: 1.6% [-11.2%; +7.9%]). Effect size for WOMAC pain, physical function and stiffness scores favoured NASHA over MPA from 12 to 26 weeks. In response to NASHA treatment at 26 weeks, sustained improvements were seen in WOMAC outcomes irrespective of initial treatment. No serious device-related adverse events (AEs) were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that single-injection NASHA was well tolerated and non-inferior to MPA at 12 weeks. The benefit of NASHA was maintained to 26 weeks while that of MPA declined. An injection of NASHA at 26 weeks conferred long-term improvements without increased sensitivity or risk of complications. STUDY IDENTIFIER: NCT01209364 (www.clinicaltrials.gov)