Patient-Reported Outcome questionnaires for hip arthroscopy: a systematic review of the psychometric evidence

Abstract Background Hip arthroscopies are often used in the treatment of intra-articular hip injuries. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are an important parameter in evaluating treatment. It is unclear which PRO questionnaires are specifically available for hip arthroscopy patients. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate which PRO questionnaires are valid and reliable in the evaluation of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. Methods A search was conducted in Pubmed, Medline, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Pedro, EMBASE and Web of Science from 1931 to October 2010. Studies assessing the quality of PRO questionnaires in the evaluation of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy were included. The quality of the questionnaires was evaluated by the psychometric properties of the outcome measures. The quality of the articles investigating the questionnaires was assessed by the COSMIN list. Results Five articles identified three questionnaires; the Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS), the Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS) and the Hip Outcome Score (HOS). The NAHS scored best on the content validity, whereas the HOS scored best on agreement, internal consistency, reliability and responsiveness. The quality of the articles describing the HOS scored highest. The NAHS is the best quality questionnaire. The articles describing the HOS are the best quality articles. Conclusions This systematic review shows that there is no conclusive evidence for the use of a single patient-reported outcome questionnaire in the evaluation of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. Based on available psychometric evidence we recommend using a combination of the NAHS and the HOS for patients undergoing hip arthroscopy.</p

Purification and Characterization of a Sperm Motility Inhibiting Factor from Caprine Epididymal Plasma

Several studies have been reported on the occurrence of sperm motility inhibiting factors in the male reproductive fluids of different mammalian species, but these proteins have not been adequately purified and characterized. A novel sperm motility inhibiting factor (MIF-II) has been purified from caprine epididymal plasma (EP) by Hydroxylapatite gel adsorption chromatography, DEAE-Cellulose ion-exchange chromatography and chromatofocusing. The MIF-II has been purified to apparent homogeneity and the molecular weight estimated by Sephacryl S-300 gel filtration is 160 kDa. MIF-II is a dimeric protein, made up of two subunits each having a molecular mass of 80 kDa as shown by SDS-PAGE. The isoelectric point of MIF-II is 5.1 as determined by chromatofocusing and isoelectric focusing. It is a heat labile protein and maximal active at the pH 6.9 to 7.5. The sperm motility inhibiting protein factor at 2 µg/ml (12.5 nM) level showed maximal motility-inhibiting activity. The observation that the epididymal plasma factor lowered the intracellular cAMP level of spermatozoa in a concentration-dependent manner suggests that it may block the motility of caprine cauda spermatozoa by interfering the cAMP dependent motility function. The results revealed that the purified protein factor has the potential of sperm motility inhibition and may serve as a vaginal contraceptive. The antibody raised against the MIF-II has the potential for enhancement of forward motility of cauda-spermatozoa. This antibody may thus be useful for solving some of the problems of male infertility due to low sperm motility

Practical Applications as a Source of Credibility: A Comparison of Three Fields of Dutch Academic Chemistry

In many Western science systems, funding structures increasingly stimulate academic research to contribute to practical applications, but at the same time the rise of bibliometric performance assessments have strengthened the pressure on academics to conduct excellent basic research that can be published in scholarly literature. We analyze the interplay between these two developments in a set of three case studies of fields of chemistry in the Netherlands. First, we describe how the conditions under which academic chemists work have changed since 1975. Second, we investigate whether practical applications have become a source of credibility for individual researchers. Indeed, this turns out to be the case in catalysis, where connecting with industrial applications helps in many steps of the credibility cycle. Practical applications yield much less credibility in environmental chemistry, where application-oriented research agendas help to acquire funding, but not to publish prestigious papers or to earn peer recognition. In biochemistry practical applications hardly help in gaining credibility, as this field is still strongly oriented at fundamental questions. The differences between the fields can be explained by the presence or absence of powerful upstream end-users, who can afford to invest in academic research with promising long term benefits