161 research outputs found

    The Effect of Auditory Distraction on the Useful Field of View in Hearing Impaired Individuals and its implications for driving

    Get PDF
    This study assessed whether the increased demand of listening in hearing impaired individuals exacerbates the detrimental impact of auditory distraction on a visual task (useful field of view test), relative to normally hearing listeners. Auditory distraction negatively affects this visual task, which is linked with various driving performance outcomes. Hearing impaired and normally hearing participants performed useful field of view testing with and without a simultaneous listening task. They also undertook a cognitive test battery. For all participants, performing the visual and auditory tasks together reduced performance on each respective test. For a number of subtests, hearing impaired participants showed poorer visual task performance, though not to a statistically significant extent. Hearing impaired participants were significantly poorer at a reading span task than normally hearing participants and tended to score lower on the most visually complex subtest of the visual task in the absence of auditory task engagement. Useful field of view performance is negatively affected by auditory distraction, and hearing loss may present further problems, given the reductions in visual and cognitive task performance suggested in this study. Suggestions are made for future work to extend this study, given the practical importance of the findings

    Central role for MCP-1/CCL2 in injury-induced inflammation revealed by in vitro, in silico, and clinical studies

    Get PDF
    The translation of in vitro findings to clinical outcomes is often elusive. Trauma/hemorrhagic shock (T/HS) results in hepatic hypoxia that drives inflammation. We hypothesize that in silico methods would help bridge in vitro hepatocyte data and clinical T/HS, in which the liver is a primary site of inflammation. Primary mouse hepatocytes were cultured under hypoxia (1% O 2) or normoxia (21% O2) for 1-72 h, and both the cell supernatants and protein lysates were assayed for 18 inflammatory mediators by Luminex™ technology. Statistical analysis and data-driven modeling were employed to characterize the main components of the cellular response. Statistical analyses, hierarchical and k-means clustering, Principal Component Analysis, and Dynamic Network Analysis suggested MCP-1/CCL2 and IL-1α as central coordinators of hepatocyte-mediated inflammation in C57BL/6 mouse hepatocytes. Hepatocytes from MCP-1-null mice had altered dynamic inflammatory networks. Circulating MCP-1 levels segregated human T/HS survivors from non-survivors. Furthermore, T/HS survivors with elevated early levels of plasma MCP-1 post-injury had longer total lengths of stay, longer intensive care unit lengths of stay, and prolonged requirement for mechanical ventilation vs. those with low plasma MCP-1. This study identifies MCP-1 as a main driver of the response of hepatocytes in vitro and as a biomarker for clinical outcomes in T/HS, and suggests an experimental and computational framework for discovery of novel clinical biomarkers in inflammatory diseases. © 2013 Ziraldo et al

    Twenty bone-mineral-density loci identified by large-scale meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies

    Get PDF
    To access publisher full text version of this article. Please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links fieldBone mineral density (BMD) is a heritable complex trait used in the clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis and the assessment of fracture risk. We performed meta-analysis of five genome-wide association studies of femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD in 19,195 subjects of Northern European descent. We identified 20 BMD loci that reached genome-wide significance (GWS; P < 5 x 10(-8)), of which 13 map to regions not previously associated with this trait: 1p31.3 (GPR177), 2p21 (SPTBN1), 3p22 (CTNNB1), 4q21.1 (MEPE), 5q14 (MEF2C), 7p14 (STARD3NL), 7q21.3 (FLJ42280), 11p11.2 (LRP4, ARHGAP1, F2), 11p14.1 (DCDC5), 11p15 (SOX6), 16q24 (FOXL1), 17q21 (HDAC5) and 17q12 (CRHR1). The meta-analysis also confirmed at GWS level seven known BMD loci on 1p36 (ZBTB40), 6q25 (ESR1), 8q24 (TNFRSF11B), 11q13.4 (LRP5), 12q13 (SP7), 13q14 (TNFSF11) and 18q21 (TNFRSF11A). The many SNPs associated with BMD map to genes in signaling pathways with relevance to bone metabolism and highlight the complex genetic architecture that underlies osteoporosis and variation in BMD

    A systematic review of the psychometric properties of self-report research utilization measures used in healthcare

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In healthcare, a gap exists between what is known from research and what is practiced. Understanding this gap depends upon our ability to robustly measure research utilization.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>The objectives of this systematic review were: to identify self-report measures of research utilization used in healthcare, and to assess the psychometric properties (acceptability, reliability, and validity) of these measures.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a systematic review of literature reporting use or development of self-report research utilization measures. Our search included: multiple databases, ancestry searches, and a hand search. Acceptability was assessed by examining time to complete the measure and missing data rates. Our approach to reliability and validity assessment followed that outlined in the <it>Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing</it>.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 42,770 titles screened, 97 original studies (108 articles) were included in this review. The 97 studies reported on the use or development of 60 unique self-report research utilization measures. Seven of the measures were assessed in more than one study. Study samples consisted of healthcare providers (92 studies) and healthcare decision makers (5 studies). No studies reported data on acceptability of the measures. Reliability was reported in 32 (33%) of the studies, representing 13 of the 60 measures. Internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) reliability was reported in 31 studies; values exceeded 0.70 in 29 studies. Test-retest reliability was reported in 3 studies with Pearson's <it>r </it>coefficients > 0.80. No validity information was reported for 12 of the 60 measures. The remaining 48 measures were classified into a three-level validity hierarchy according to the number of validity sources reported in 50% or more of the studies using the measure. Level one measures (n = 6) reported evidence from any three (out of four possible) <it>Standards </it>validity sources (which, in the case of single item measures, was all applicable validity sources). Level two measures (n = 16) had evidence from any two validity sources, and level three measures (n = 26) from only one validity source.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This review reveals significant underdevelopment in the measurement of research utilization. Substantial methodological advances with respect to construct clarity, use of research utilization and related theory, use of measurement theory, and psychometric assessment are required. Also needed are improved reporting practices and the adoption of a more contemporary view of validity (<it>i.e.</it>, the <it>Standards</it>) in future research utilization measurement studies.</p

    To what extent do nurses use research in clinical practice? A systematic review

    Get PDF
    Background : In the past forty years, many gains have been made in our understanding of the concept of research utilization. While numerous studies exist on professional nurses\u27 use of research in practice, no attempt has been made to systematically evaluate and synthesize this body of literature with respect to the extent to which nurses use research in their clinical practice. The objective of this study was to systematically identify and analyze the available evidence related to the extent to which nurses use research findings in practice. Methods : This study was a systematic review of published and grey literature. The search strategy included 13 online bibliographic databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, HAPI, Web of Science, SCOPUS, OCLC Papers First, OCLC WorldCat, ABI Inform, Sociological Abstracts, and Dissertation Abstracts. The inclusion criteria consisted of primary research reports that assess professional nurses\u27 use of research in practice, written in the English or Scandinavian languages. Extent of research use was determined by assigning research use scores reported in each article to one of four quartiles: low, moderate-low, moderate-high, or high. Results : Following removal of duplicate citations, a total of 12,418 titles were identified through database searches, of which 133 articles were retrieved. Of the articles retrieved, 55 satisfied the inclusion criteria. The 55 final reports included cross-sectional/survey (n = 51) and quasi-experimental (n = 4) designs. A sensitivity analysis, comparing findings from all reports with those rated moderate (moderate-weak and moderate-strong) and strong quality, did not show significant differences. In a majority of the articles identified (n = 38, 69%), nurses reported moderate-high research use. Conclusions : According to this review, nurses\u27 reported use of research is moderate-high and has remained relatively consistent over time until the early 2000\u27s. This finding, however, may paint an overly optimistic picture of the extent to which nurses use research in their practice given the methodological problems inherent in the majority of studies. There is a clear need for the development of standard measures of research use and robust well-designed studies examining nurses\u27 use of research and its impact on patient outcomes. The relatively unchanged self-reports of moderate-high research use by nurses is troubling given that over 40 years have elapsed since the first studies in this review were conducted and the increasing emphasis in the past 15 years on evidence-based practice. More troubling is the absence of studies in which attempts are made to assess the effects of varying levels of research use on patient outcomes.<br /
    • …
    corecore