Inventory of current EU paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes

Background: We examined the diversity in paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in Europe. Methods: Themes relevant for comparison of screening programmes were derived from literature and used to compile three questionnaires on vision, hearing and public-health screening. Tests used, professions involved, age and frequency of testing seem to influence sensitivity, specificity and costs most. Questionnaires were sent to ophthalmologists, orthoptists, otolaryngologists and audiologists involved in paediatric screening in all EU fullmember, candidate and associate states. Answers were cross-checked. Results: Thirty-nine countries participated; 35 have a vision screening programme, 33 a nation-wide neonatal hearing screening programme. Visual acuity (VA) is measured in 35 countries, in 71% more than once. First measurement of VA varies from three to seven years of age, but is usually before the age of five. At age three and four picture charts, including Lea Hyvarinen are used most, in children over four Tumbling-E and Snellen. As first hearing screening test otoacoustic emission (OAE) is used most in healthy neonates, and auditory brainstem response (ABR) in premature newborns. The majority of hearing testing programmes are staged; children are referred after one to four abnormal tests. Vision screening is performed mostly by paediatricians, ophthalmologists or nurses. Funding is mostly by health insurance or state. Coverage was reported as >95% in half of countries, but reporting was often not first-hand. Conclusion: Largest differences were found in VA charts used (12), professions involved in vision screening (10), number of hearing screening tests before referral (1-4) and funding sources (8)

Multifunctional binary and complex oxides films and nanostructures for nanoelectronics and energy applications

Epitaxial high-k-dielectrics:ternary rare-earth based oxides grown on semicoducting substrate

Inventory of current EU paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes

Objective: To examine the diversity in paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in Europe. Methods: Themes for comparison of screening programmes derived from literature were used to compile three questionnaires on vision, hearing, and public health screening. Tests used, professions involved, age, and frequency of testing seem to influence sensitivity, specificity, and costs most. Questionnaires were sent to ophthalmologists, orthoptists, otolaryngologists, and audiologists involved in paediatric screening in all EU full-member, candidate, and associate states. Answers were cross-checked. Results: Thirty-nine countries participated; 35 have a vision screening programme, 33 a nation-wide neonatal hearing screening programme. Visual acuity (VA) is measured in 35 countries, in 71% of these more than once. First measurement of VA varies from three to seven years of age, but is usually before age five. At age three and four, picture charts, including Lea Hyvarinen, are used most; in children over four, Tumbling-E and Snellen. As first hearing screening test, otoacoustic emission is used most in healthy neonates, and auditory brainstem response in premature newborns. The majority of hearing testing programmes are staged; children are referred after 1–4 abnormal tests. Vision screening is performed mostly by paediatricians, ophthalmologists, or nurses. Funding is mostly by health insurance or state. Coverage was reported as >95% in half of countries, but reporting was often not first-hand. Conclusion: Largest differences were found in VA charts used (12), professions involved in vision screening (10), number of hearing screening tests before referral (1–4), and funding sources (8). © 2015, The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

The Family Rhodobacteraceae

The family Rhodobacteraceae can be considered a paradigm of modern taxonomy of prokaryotes. Taking into account the number of species and genera that conforms the family, together with the knowledge about their abundance and vast global distribution, it surprises that most of them have been described relatively recent to our days. Two notable exceptions are Rhodonostoc capsulatum (Molisch, Die purpurbakterien nach neuen untersuchungen, vols i–vii. G. Fischer, Jena, pp 1–95, 1907) and Micrococcus denitrificans Beijerinck and Minkman (Zentbl Bakteriol, Parasitenkd, Infektionskr Hyg. Abt II 25:30–63, 1910), early basonyms of Rhodobacter capsulatus and Paracoccus denitrificans, respectively. The fact that so many descriptions within this family are recent means that some studies have been concomitant and pose a challenge not only for pure taxonomic studies but also for interpreting other studies in which a rapidly evolving nomenclature had to be used anyway. The metabolic and ecological diversity of the group adds further complexity. In spite of all these difficulties, the picture is far from being a chaos and it can be considered an exciting and important bacterial group to study. Rhodobacteraceae are, fundamentally, aquatic bacteria that frequently thrive in marine environments. They comprise mainly aerobic photo- and chemoheterotrophs but also purple non-sulfur bacteria which perform photosynthesis in anaerobic environments. They are deeply involved in sulfur and carbon biogeochemical cycling and symbiosis with aquatic micro- and macroorganisms. One hundred genera are currently recognized as members of the family although the Stappia group, Ahrensia, Agaricicola, and Rhodothalassium do not belong, phylogenetically, to the family. The 90 other genera are distributed in 5 phylogenetic groups (the Rhodobacter, the Paracoccus, the Rhodovulum, the Amaricoccus, and the Roseobacter clades) that might be considered a family on its own