16 research outputs found
The atypical 'hippocampal' glutamate receptor coupled to phospholipase D that controls stretch-sensitivity in primary mechanosensory nerve endings is homomeric purely metabotropic GluK2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank: Prof. Christophe Mulle, University of Bordeaux, France for the generous donation of the GluK2-Neo mice; Prof. Roberto Pellicciari and Prof. Maura Marinozzi, University of Perugia, Italy for the generous gift of PCCG-13; the Microscopy and Histology core facility at the Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Aberdeen for their support and assistance in some of the imaging in this work. We would also like to thank Prof. Gernot Riedel, University of Aberdeen UK and Prof. David Jane, University of Bristol UK for helpful comments during the work and discussion about drafts of this manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD
The prevalence of vertebral fracture amongst patients presenting with non-vertebral fractures
INTRODUCTION: Despite vertebral fracture being a significant risk factor for further fracture, vertebral fractures are often unrecognised. A study was therefore conducted to determine the proportion of patients presenting with a non-vertebral fracture who also have an unrecognised vertebral fracture. METHODS: Prospective study of patients presenting with a non-vertebral fracture in South Glasgow who underwent DXA evaluation with vertebral morphometry (MXA) from DV5/6 to LV4/5. Vertebral deformities (consistent with fracture) were identified by direct visualisation using the Genant semi-quantitative grading scale. RESULTS: Data were available for 337 patients presenting with low trauma non-vertebral fracture; 261 were female. Of all patients, 10.4% were aged 50–64 years, 53.2% were aged 65–74 years and 36.2% were aged 75 years or over. According to WHO definitions, 35.0% of patients had normal lumbar spine BMD (T-score −1 or above), 37.4% were osteopenic (T-score −1.1 to −2.4) and 27.6% osteoporotic (T-score −2.5 or lower). Humerus (n=103, 31%), radius–ulna (n=90, 27%) and hand/foot (n=53, 16%) were the most common fractures. For 72% of patients (n=241) the presenting fracture was the first low trauma fracture to come to clinical attention. The overall prevalence of vertebral deformity established by MXA was 25% (n=83); 45% (n=37) of patients with vertebral deformity had deformities of more than one vertebra. Of the patients with vertebral deformity and readable scans for grading, 72.5% (58/80) had deformities of grade 2 or 3. Patients presenting with hip fracture, or spine T-score ≤−2.5, or low BMI, or with more than one prior non-vertebral fracture were all significantly more likely to have evidence of a prevalent vertebral deformity (p<0.05). However, 19.8% of patients with an osteopenic T-score had a vertebral deformity (48% of which were multiple), and 16.1% of patients with a normal T-score had a vertebral deformity (26.3% of which were multiple). Following non-vertebral fracture, some guidelines suggest that anti-resorptive therapy should be reserved for patients with DXA-proven osteoporosis. However, patients who have one or more prior vertebral fractures (prevalent at the time of their non-vertebral fracture) would also become candidates for anti-resorptive therapy—which would have not been the case had their vertebral fracture status not been known. Overall in this study, 8.9% of patients are likely to have had a change in management by virtue of their underlying vertebral deformity status. In other words, 11 patients who present with a non-vertebral fracture would need to undergo vertebral morphometry in order to identify one patient who ought to be managed differently. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the recommendation to perform vertebral morphometry in patients who are referred for DXA after experiencing a non-vertebral fracture. Treatment decisions will then better reflect any given patient’s future absolute fracture risk. The 'Number Needed to Screen' if vertebral morphometry is used in this way would be seven to identify one patient with vertebral deformity, and 14 to identify one patient with two or more vertebral deformities. Although carrying out MXA will increase radiation exposure for the patient, this increased exposure is significantly less than would be obtained if X-rays of the dorso-lumbar spine were obtained
Behavioural excesses and deficits associated with dementia in adults who have Down syndrome
Behavioural excesses and deficits associated with dementia in adults who have Down syndrome
Improving the Yield of Target Quality OMEGA Size PAMS Mandrels by Modifying Emulsion Components
The importance of multimodal play and storytelling to a mixed realities play-kit for preparing 4 to 10-year-olds for an MRI scan
This article examines the research and development of a mixed realities play-kit to prepare children for an MRI scan to be undertaken without a General Anaesthetic. The kit uses three
different types of play; augmented, virtual reality and physical to help children become familiar with the look of an MRI scanner, the noises it makes, the role of the radiographer, what to expect when they go to hospital and to practise staying still. We reflect on the initial multimodal research methods that were used to bring children into the first stages of the design and development process. These included, model making, drawing, play and informal
conversations. From which, data were analysed with visual and thematic means to make an original contribution to the field of medtech design for children, in that we found young children (aged 6 and under) prefer to receive medical information through opportunities for multimodal play and storytelling. As a direct result of this finding, we matched different play types to the various areas of preparation outlined above. In doing so, paying attention to the specific affordances of the different ways in which modes are combined depending on if physical, augmented or virtual reality play are used. Such findings are likely to be useful to
other researchers and developers creating medtech products for young children. For those interested in multimodality specifically, this article also provides insight into the connection between information, modes of communication and play and the application of these to research design