Ohio School Finance: Continuing Challenges to Adequacy and Equity of Funding

Like many states, Ohio struggles as it attempts to fund and maintain public schools

Learning from Prior Designs for Facility Layout Optimization

Peer reviewe

Registration of ‘LCS Compass’ Wheat

‘LCS Compass’ (Reg. No. CV-1149, PI 675458), a hard red winter (HRW) wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), was developed and tested as VA10HRW-13 and co-released by the Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station and Limagrain Cereal Seeds, LLC, in 2015. LCS Compass was derived from the cross ‘Vision 20’ /‘Stanof’ using a modified bulk breeding method. LCS Compass is a widely adapted, high-yielding, awned, semidwarf (Rht1) HRW wheat with early to medium maturity and resistance or moderate resistance to diseases prevalent in the mid-Atlantic and Great Plains regions of the United States. In the 2013 Uniform Bread Wheat Trial conducted over 18 locations in eastern states, LCS Compass produced an average grain yield of 4609 kg ha−1 that was similar to ‘Vision 30’ (4697 kg ha−1). In the northern Great Plains, the average grain yield of LCS Compass (4015 kg ha−1) over 44 locations in 2013 was similar to ‘Jerry’ (4013 kg ha−1). In the South Dakota crop zone 3 variety test, LCS Compass had a 3-yr (2015–2017) yield average of 5575 kg ha−1 and was one of highest-yielding cultivars among the 19 cultivars tested over the 3-yr period. LCS Compass has good end-use quality in both the eastern and Great Plains regions of the United States

Safety, Immunogenicity and Duration of Protection of the RTS,S/AS02D Malaria Vaccine: One Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Phase I/IIb Trial

The RTS,S/AS02(D) vaccine has been shown to have a promising safety profile, to be immunogenic and to confer protection against malaria in children and infants.We did a randomized, controlled, phase I/IIb trial of RTS,S/AS02(D) given at 10, 14 and 18 weeks of age staggered with routine immunization vaccines in 214 Mozambican infants. The study was double-blind until the young child completed 6 months of follow-up over which period vaccine efficacy against new Plasmodium falciparum infections was estimated at 65.9% (95% CI 42.6-79.8, p<0.0001). We now report safety, immunogenicity and estimated efficacy against clinical malaria up to 14 months after study start. Vaccine efficacy was assessed using Cox regression models. The frequency of serious adverse events was 32.7% in the RTS,S/AS02(D) and 31.8% in the control group. The geometric mean titers of anti-circumsporozoite antibodies declined from 199.9 to 7.3 EU/mL from one to 12 months post dose three of RTS,S/AS02(D), remaining 15-fold higher than in the control group. Vaccine efficacy against clinical malaria was 33% (95% CI: -4.3-56.9, p = 0.076) over 14 months of follow-up. The hazard rate of disease per 2-fold increase in anti-CS titters was reduced by 84% (95% CI 35.1-88.2, p = 0.003).The RTS,S/AS02(D) malaria vaccine administered to young infants has a good safety profile and remains efficacious over 14 months. A strong association between anti-CS antibodies and risk of clinical malaria has been described for the first time. The results also suggest a decrease of both anti-CS antibodies and vaccine efficacy over time.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00197028

Are chiropractors in the uk primary healthcare or primary contact practitioners?: a mixed methods study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>One of the debates regarding the role of chiropractors is whether or not they should be considered as primary healthcare practitioners. Primary care is often used to describe chiropractic but without any definition of what is meant by the term. Primary healthcare itself has many definitions and this adds to the problem. Existing research literature, based mostly in the USA, suggests that the use of the title "primary healthcare professional" by chiropractors is central to the identity of the profession. It has also been suggested that the concept of primary care is misused by chiropractors because they have not examined the concept in detail and thus do not understand it. For the sake of quality of patient care and for the legitimacy of the profession, chiropractors in the UK need to agree on their healthcare role. This study aimed to examine the opinions of chiropractors towards the use of the term primary healthcare when applied to chiropractic practice within the UK.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A sequential study of exploratory design was used; this model is characterised by an initial phase of qualitative data collection and analysis that precedes and informs the quantitative phase of data collection and analysis. In this study, interviews with members of chiropractic teaching faculty were used to inform the development of a questionnaire used to survey the opinions of chiropractors in the UK.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was a general consensus of opinion that chiropractors are primary contact practitioners, who work in a primary healthcare setting and that to be able to fulfil this healthcare role, chiropractors must be able to diagnose patients and refer when required. Participants did not feel that chiropractors are able to treat all of the most common medical conditions that present in a primary healthcare setting.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The findings of this study suggest that chiropractors in the UK view their role as one of a primary contact healthcare practitioner and that this view is held irrespective of the country in which they were educated or the length of time in practice.</p> <p>Further research needs to be developed to evaluate the findings of the current study within a wider healthcare context. In particular the opinions of other healthcare professionals towards the role of chiropractors in healthcare, need to be examined in more detail.</p

A systematic review on the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine for chronic non-specific low-back pain

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effects of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), acupuncture and herbal medicine for chronic non-specific LBP. A comprehensive search was conducted by an experienced librarian from the Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) in multiple databases up to December 22, 2008. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with chronic non-specific LBP, which evaluated at least one clinically relevant, patient-centred outcome measure were included. Two authors working independently from one another assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the CBRG and extracted the data. The data were pooled when clinically homogeneous and statistically possible or were otherwise qualitatively described. GRADE was used to determine the quality of the evidence. In total, 35 RCTs (8 SMT, 20 acupuncture, 7 herbal medicine), which examined 8,298 patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Approximately half of these (2 SMT, 8 acupuncture, 7 herbal medicine) were thought to have a low risk of bias. In general, the pooled effects for the studied interventions demonstrated short-term relief or improvement only. The lack of studies with a low-risk of bias, especially in regard to SMT precludes any strong conclusions; however, the principal findings, which are based upon low- to very-low-quality evidence, suggest that SMT does not provide a more clinically beneficial effect compared with sham, passive modalities or any other intervention for treatment of chronic low-back pain. There is evidence, however, that acupuncture provides a short-term clinically relevant effect when compared with a waiting list control or when acupuncture is added to another intervention. Although there are some good results for individual herbal medicines in short-term individual trials, the lack of homogeneity across studies did not allow for a pooled estimate of the effect. In general, these results are in agreement with other recent systematic reviews on SMT, but in contrast with others. These results are also in agreement with recent reviews on acupuncture and herbal medicine. Randomized trials with a low risk of bias and adequate sample sizes are direly needed

A systematic review on the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain

Low back pain (LBP) is a common and disabling disorder in western society. The management of LBP comprises a range of different intervention strategies including surgery, drug therapy, and non-medical interventions. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions (i.e. exercise therapy, back school, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), low level laser therapy, education, massage, behavioural treatment, traction, multidisciplinary treatment, lumbar supports, and heat/cold therapy) for chronic LBP. The primary search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PEDro up to 22 December 2008. Existing Cochrane reviews for the individual interventions were screened for studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. The search strategy outlined by the Cochrane Back Review Groups (CBRG) was followed. The following were included for selection criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials, (2) adult (≥18 years) population with chronic (≥12 weeks) non-specific LBP, and (3) evaluation of at least one of the main clinically relevant outcome measures (pain, functional status, perceived recovery, or return to work). Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes at short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up. The GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence. In total 83 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria: exercise therapy (n = 37), back school (n = 5), TENS (n = 6), low level laser therapy (n = 3), behavioural treatment (n = 21), patient education (n = 1), traction (n = 1), and multidisciplinary treatment (n = 6). Compared to usual care, exercise therapy improved post-treatment pain intensity and disability, and long-term function. Behavioural treatment was found to be effective in reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Finally, multidisciplinary treatment was found to reduce pain intensity and disability at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Overall, the level of evidence was low. Evidence from randomized controlled trials demonstrates that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of exercise therapy compared to usual care, there is low evidence for the effectiveness of behavioural therapy compared to no treatment and there is moderate evidence for the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary treatment compared to no treatment and other active treatments at reducing pain at short-term in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Based on the heterogeneity of the populations, interventions, and comparison groups, we conclude that there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusion on the clinical effect of back schools, low-level laser therapy, patient education, massage, traction, superficial heat/cold, and lumbar supports for chronic LBP

The clinical course of low back pain: a meta-analysis comparing outcomes in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that the course of low back pain (LBP) symptoms in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) follows a pattern of large improvement regardless of the type of treatment. A similar pattern was independently observed in observational studies. However, there is an assumption that the clinical course of symptoms is particularly influenced in RCTs by mere participation in the trials. To test this assumption, the aim of our study was to compare the course of LBP in RCTs and observational studies. METHODS: Source of studies CENTRAL database for RCTs and MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and hand search of systematic reviews for cohort studies. Studies include individuals aged 18 or over, and concern non-specific LBP. Trials had to concern primary care treatments. Data were extracted on pain intensity. Meta-regression analysis was used to compare the pooled within-group change in pain in RCTs with that in cohort studies calculated as the standardised mean change (SMC). RESULTS: 70 RCTs and 19 cohort studies were included, out of 1134 and 653 identified respectively. LBP symptoms followed a similar course in RCTs and cohort studies: a rapid improvement in the first 6 weeks followed by a smaller further improvement until 52 weeks. There was no statistically significant difference in pooled SMC between RCTs and cohort studies at any time point:- 6 weeks: RCTs: SMC 1.0 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.0) and cohorts 1.2 (0.7to 1.7); 13 weeks: RCTs 1.2 (1.1 to 1.3) and cohorts 1.0 (0.8 to 1.3); 27 weeks: RCTs 1.1 (1.0 to 1.2) and cohorts 1.2 (0.8 to 1.7); 52 weeks: RCTs 0.9 (0.8 to 1.0) and cohorts 1.1 (0.8 to 1.6). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical course of LBP symptoms followed a pattern that was similar in RCTs and cohort observational studies. In addition to a shared 'natural history', enrolment of LBP patients in clinical studies is likely to provoke responses that reflect the nonspecific effects of seeking and receiving care, independent of the study design