Distal junctional kyphosis in patients with Scheuermann’s disease: a retrospective radiographic analysis

Purpose To investigate the relationship between preoperative and postoperative spinopelvic alignment and occurrence of DJK/DJF. Study design/setting This was a retrospective observational cohort study. Patient sample The sample included 40 patients who underwent posterior correction of SK from January 2006 to December 2014. Outcome measures Correlation analysis between the preoperative and postoperative spinopelvic alignment parameters and development of DJK over the course of the study period were studied. Methods Whole spine X-rays obtained before surgery, 3 months after surgery and at the latest follow-up were analyzed. The following parameters were measured: maximum of thoracic kyphosis (TK), lumbar lordosis (LL), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) and LIV plumb line. Development of DJK was considered as the primary end point of the study. The patient population was split into a control and DJK group, with 34 patients and 6 patients, respectively. Statistic analysis was performed using unpaired t test for normal contribution and Mann–Whitney test for skew distributed values. The significance level was set to 0.05. Results DJK occurred in 15% (n = 6) over the study period. There was a significantly lower postoperative TK for the group with DJK (42.4 ± 5.3 vs 49.8 ± 6.7, p = 0.015). LIV plumb line showed higher negative values in the DJK group (−43.6 ± 25.1 vs −2.2 ± 17.8, p = 0.0435). Furthermore, postoperative LL changes were lower for the DJK group (33.84 ± 13.86% vs 31.77 ± 14.05, p < 0.0001.) The age of the patients who developed DJK was also significantly lower than that of the control group (16.8 ± 1.7 vs 19.6 ± 4.9, p = 0.0024.) Conclusions SK patients who developed DJK appeared to have a significantly higher degree of TK correction and more negative LIV plumb line. In addition, there may be a higher risk for DJK in patients undergoing corrective surgery at a younger age

Adolescent discourse summarization (Lundine et al., 2018)

<div><b>Purpose:</b> Summarizing expository passages is a critical academic skill that is understudied in language research. The purpose of this study was to compare the quality of verbal summaries produced by adolescents for 3 different discourse types and to determine whether a composite measure of cognitive skill or a test of expressive syntax predicted their performance.</div><div><b>Method:</b> Fifty adolescents listened to, and then verbally summarized, 1 narrative and 2 expository lectures (compare–contrast and cause–effect). They also participated in testing that targeted expressive syntax and 5 cognitive subdomains.</div><div><b>Results:</b> Summary quality scores were significantly different across discourse types, with a medium effect size. Analyse revealed significantly higher summary quality scores for cause–effect than compare–contrast summaries. Although the composite cognitive measure contributed significantly to the prediction of quality scores for both types of expository summaries, the expressive syntax score only contributed significantly to the quality scores for narrative summaries.</div><div><b>Conclusions:</b> These results support previous research indicating that type of expository discourse may impact student performance. These results also show, for the first time, that cognition may play a predictive role in determining summary quality for expository but not narrative passages in this population. In addition, despite the more complex syntax commonly associated with exposition versus narratives, an expressive syntax score was only predictive of performance on narrative summaries. These findings provide new information, questions, and directions for future research for those who study academic discourse and for professionals who must identify and manage the problems of students struggling with different types of academic discourse.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Supplemental Material S1.</b> Descriptive block-level U.S. Census values for participants and rotated structure matrix for principal component analysis with Varimax rotation of socioeconomic status (SES) variables.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Supplemental Material S2.</b> Descriptions of compare–contrast, cause–effect, and narrative lectures. </div><div><br></div><div><b>Supplemental Material S3.</b> Tests used from the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Supplemental Material S4.</b> Pearson correlations for Expressive Syntax score, MLCU, and SI for compare–contrast, cause–effect, and narrative summaries (<i>N</i> = 50).</div><div><br></div><div><b>Supplemental Material S5.</b> Pearson correlations for total summarization quality scores for compare–contrast, cause–effect, and narrative lectures, age, socioeconomic status (SES) factors, cognitive composite score, and expressive syntax score (<i>N</i> = 48).</div><div><br></div><div>Lundine, J. P., Harnish, S. M., McCauley, R. J., Blackett, D. S., Zezinka, A., Chen, W., & Fox, R. A. (2018). Adolescent summaries of narrative and expository discourse: Differences and predictors. <i>Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49, </i>551–568. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17-0105</div

Global evidence of gender inequity in academic health research: a living scoping review protocol

Objective: The objective of this review is to describe the global evidence of gender inequity among individuals with appointments at academic institutions that conduct health research, and examine how gender intersects with other social identities to influence outcomes. Introduction: The gender demographics of universities have shifted, yet the characteristics of those who lead academic health research institutions have not reflected this change. Synthesized evidence will guide decision-making and policy development to support the progress of gender and other under-represented social identities in academia. Inclusion Criteria: This review will consider any quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods primary research that reports outcome data related to gender equity and other social identities among individuals affiliated with academic or research institutions that conduct health research, originating from any country. Methods: The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the Cochrane Collaboration's guidance on living reviews will inform the review methods. Information sources will include electronic databases, unpublished literature sources, reference scanning of relevant systematic reviews, and sources provided by experts on the research team. Searches will be run regularly to monitor the development of new literature and determine when the review will be updated. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers working independently, and all discrepancies will be resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Data synthesis will summarize information using descriptive frequencies and simple thematic analysis. Results will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension to scoping reviews.</p