EKG isolator

Light beam transmits heartbeat signal from electrodes on patient to electrocardiograph without exposing patient to possible severe electrical shock. System provides complete isolation between patient and EKG instrumentation

A genome-wide association study suggests an association of Chr8p21.3 (GFRA2) with diabetic neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain, caused by a lesion or a disease affecting the somatosensory system, is one of the most common complications in diabetic patients. The purpose of this study is to identify genetic factors contributing to this type of pain in a general diabetic population. METHOD: We accessed the Genetics of Diabetes Audit and Research Tayside (GoDARTS) datasets that contain prescription information and monofilament test results for 9439 diabetic patients, among which 6927 diabetic individuals were genotyped by Affymetrix SNP6.0 or Illumina OmniExpress chips. Cases of neuropathic pain were defined as diabetic patients with a prescription history of at least one of five drugs specifically indicated for the treatment of neuropathic pain and in whom monofilament test result was positive for sensory neuropathy in at least one foot. Controls were individuals who did not have a record of receiving any opioid analgesics. Imputation of non‐genotyped SNPs was performed by IMPUTE2, with reference files from 1000 Genomes Phase I datasets. RESULTS: After data cleaning and relevant exclusions, imputed genotypes of 572 diabetic neuropathic pain cases and 2491 diabetic controls were used in the Fisher's exact test. We identified a cluster in the Chr8p21.3, next to GFRA2 with a lowest p‐value of 1.77 × 10(−7) at rs17428041. The narrow‐sense heritability of this phenotype was 11.00%. CONCLUSION: This genome‐wide association study on diabetic neuropathic pain suggests new evidence for the involvement of variants near GFRA2 with the disorder, which needs to be verified in an independent cohort and at the molecular level

Cost-impact study of rotavirus vaccination programme in Scotland

Aim: In July 2013, the Scottish Government introduced a rotavirus vaccination programme into the childhood immunisation schedule. The aim of this research was to estimate the cost impact of this programme. Methods: Data for rotavirus-related resource use were identified including laboratory reports, hospitalisations, attendances at Accident and Emergency Departments, general practice consultations, calls to the National Health Service telephone helpline and prescriptions for common rehydration treatments. We used an interrupted time series analysis approach to assess the impact on resource utilisation in all categories. Appropriate costs were added to the models and predicted pre and post vaccination mean annual costs were estimated. The cost of the vaccination programme was estimated using costs from the literature. Results: The vaccination programme was associated with a reduction in utilisation in all measured healthcare resource categories. These reductions were all statistically significant (at the 95% level) with p-values less than 0.001. Reductions ranged from 18% in calls to NHS24 to 73% in positive laboratory reports. The vaccination programme was associated with a reduction in annual healthcare resource costs of 38% (£595,000 per 100,000 infants under five years old) in our measured categories (including £495,000 from a reduction in hospital stays). The annual overall cost-impact of the rotavirus vaccination programme (the cost of delivering the programme minus the reduction in resource costs) was estimated at approximately £435,000 per 100,000 infants under 5 years old. Conclusion: The rotavirus vaccination programme was associated with a reduction in all measured categories of rotavirus-related resource use by infants under 5 years old

A novel research definition of bladder health in women and girls: Implications for research and public health promotion

BACKGROUND:Bladder health in women and girls is poorly understood, in part, due to absence of a definition for clinical or research purposes. This article describes the process used by a National Institutes of Health funded transdisciplinary research team (The Prevention of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms [PLUS] Consortium) to develop a definition of bladder health. METHODS:The PLUS Consortium identified currently accepted lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and outlined elements of storage and emptying functions of the bladder. Consistent with the World Health Organization's definition of health, PLUS concluded that absence of LUTS was insufficient and emphasizes the bladder's ability to adapt to short-term physical, psychosocial, and environmental challenges for the final definition. Definitions for subjective experiences and objective measures of bladder dysfunction and health were drafted. An additional bioregulatory function to protect against infection, neoplasia, chemical, or biologic threats was proposed. RESULTS:PLUS proposes that bladder health be defined as: "A complete state of physical, mental, and social well-being related to bladder function and not merely the absence of LUTS. Healthy bladder function permits daily activities, adapts to short-term physical or environmental stressors, and allows optimal well-being (e.g., travel, exercise, social, occupational, or other activities)." Definitions for each element of bladder function are reported with suggested subjective and objective measures. CONCLUSIONS:PLUS used a comprehensive transdisciplinary process to develop a bladder health definition. This will inform instrument development for evaluation of bladder health promotion and prevention of LUTS in research and public health initiatives

Sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): impact of rationing in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is dependent upon tumour stage, performance status (PS), severity of underlying liver disease, and the availability of appropriate therapies. The unavailability of sorafenib may have a significantly adverse effect on the prognosis of UK patients with advanced HCC. During the study period, access to sorafenib was at the discretion of local health funding bodies, a process that may delay or deny access to the drug and that remains in place for Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Here, we attempt to address the impact of this system on patients with advanced HCC in the United Kingdom. METHODS: This is a retrospective study performed in the two largest specialist hepatobiliary oncology units in the United Kingdom. Funding applications were made to local funding bodies for patients with advanced HCC for whom sorafenib was considered appropriate (advanced HCC not suitable for loco-regional therapies, compensated chronic liver disease, PS 0-2). RESULTS: A total of 133 applications were made, of which 57 (43%) were approved and 76 (57%) declined. Demographics and prognostic factors were balanced between the two groups. This cohort had a number of adverse prognostic features: patients were predominantly PS 1-2; the majority had multifocal disease with the largest lesion being >5 cm; and macroscopic vascular invasion, metastases, and AFP >,000 ng ml(-1), were each present in one-third of cases. The median time from application to funding decision was 17 days (range 3-260 days). For the primary 'intention-to-treat' analysis, median overall survival was 4.1 months when funding was declined, and 9.5 months when funding was approved (hazard ratio (HR) 0.48; 95% CI 0.3186-0.7267; P=0.0005). CONCLUSION: These data support the use of sorafenib for patients with advanced HCC as an effective intervention. In the United Kingdom, this applies to a relatively small group of patients, estimated to total ∼800 per year who, unfortunately, do not survive long enough to themselves lobby for the availability of this drug. These data provide a comparison of sorafenib with supportive care and demonstrate the potential detrimental impact on patient outcomes of rationing health-care resources on the basis of cost

Status and Potential of Single-cell Transcriptomics for Understanding Plant Development and Functional Biology

Funding Information University of Western Australia Acknowledgments The authors would like to extend sincere thanks to Robert Salomon for inspiring to write this manuscript. Resources were provided by The University of Western Australia.Peer reviewedPostprin

Directly Comparing Handoff Protocols for Pediatric Hospitalists

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Handoff protocols are often developed by brainstorming and consensus, and few are directly compared. We hypothesized that a handoff protocol (Flex 11) developed using a rigorous methodology would be more favorable in terms of clinicians’ attitudes, behaviors, cognitions, or time-on-task when performing handoffs compared with a prevalent protocol (Situation Background Assessment Recommendation [SBAR]). METHODS: Using a between-groups, randomized control trial design (Flex 11 versus SBAR) during a pilot study in a simulated environment, 20 clinicians (13 attending physicians and 7 residents) received 3 patient handoffs from a standardized physician, managed the patients, and handed off the patients to the same standardized physician. Participants completed surveys assessing their attitudes and cognitions, and behaviors and handoff duration were assessed through observations. RESULTS: All data were analyzed using independent samples t tests. For attitudes, “ease of use” ratings were lower for SBAR participants than Flex 11 participants (P , .01), and “being helpful” ratings were lower for SBAR participants than Flex 11 participants (P 5 .02). For behaviors, results indicate no significant difference in the information acquired between the SBAR and Flex 11 protocols. However, SBAR participants gave significantly less information than Flex 11 participants (P , .01). For cognitions, SBAR and Flex 11 participants reported similar workload except for frustration. For handoff duration, there were no significant differences between the protocols (P 5 .36). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that Flex 11 is an efficient, beneficial tool in a simulated environment with pediatric clinicians. Future studies should evaluate this protocol in the inpatient setting

Cohort profile: The Scottish Research Register SHARE. A register of people interested in research participation linked to NHS datasets

SHARE is a NHS Scotland Research (NRS) infrastructure initiative and is funded by the Chief Scientists Office of the Scottish Government. Additional funding and initiation of the spare blood retention in Tayside was supported by The Wellcome Trust Biomedical Resource Award Number 099177/Z/12/Z.Purpose: Recruitment to trials is often difficult. Many trials fail to meet recruitment targets resulting in underpowered studies which waste resources and the time of those who participated. While there is evidence that many people are willing to take part in research, particularly if it involves a condition from which they suffer, researchers are unable to easily contact such people often relying on busy clinicians to identify them. Many clinicians perceive themselves as too busy to take part in research activities. The Scottish Health Research Register SHARE adopts an approach which asks the public to consent to their data held in National Health Service databases to be used to determine their suitability for research projects. Additionally, participants can consent for spare blood, left after routine venepuncture to be automatically identified in the laboratory and stored for future research studies. Participants: Anyone over the age of 16 years in Scotland can participate. Participants are approached through a range of methods including directly at outpatient clinics and general practitioners practices, leaflets with hospital letters and personal email from employers. Findings to date: SHARE has recruited around 130 000 people. SHARE has demonstrated that it can quickly and efficiently recruit to studies, over 20 until now. In addition, it can be used to administer questionnaire studies by email and recruit to patient and public involvement groups. Future plans: SHARE continues to steadily recruit with the ambition of eventually achieving 1 000 000 people in Scotland. We are steadily increasing the number of data sets we use for identifying participants. We are adding a mobile app which will facilitate dissemination about research and allow the collection of physiological and activity data if desired. We anticipate that SHARE will soon become the main source of health research recruitment in Scotland.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe