Why do you drink caffeine? The development of the Motives for Caffeine Consumption Questionnaire (MCCQ) and its relationship with gender, age and the types of caffeinated beverages

Caffeine is the most popular psychoactive substance that is consumed worldwide. As motives influence behavior, investigation of the motivational background of caffeine consumption should help provide a better understanding of the popularity of caffeinated products. The present study aimed (i) to explore and operationalize the motives of caffeine consumption and (ii) to reveal possible differences in the motives regarding gender, age and the type of caffeinated products consumed. Motives for caffeine consumption were collected from regular caffeine consumers (N = 26) and were informed by a review of the relevant literature. Following this, a cross-sectional study was conducted on a convenience sample of Hungarian university students and working adults (N = 598). The participants completed the Motives for Caffeine Consumption Questionnaire and the Caffeine Consumption Questionnaire. Six motivational factors were identified: Alertness, Habit, Mood, Social, Taste and Symptom Management. Women had higher scores on Habit, Social, Taste and Symptom Management. Younger participants had higher scores on Alertness than the older group, and the older group had higher scores on Habit and Symptom Management. Five types of caffeine users were identified. Those who consumed (i) coffee, (ii) tea, (iii) energy drinks, (iv) coffee and tea and (v) mixed drinks. Several differences between the five groups were revealed across all motives except for Taste. The present study developed a robust psychometric instrument for assessing caffeine consumption motives. The factors varied in importance in relation to gender, age and caffeine consumption habits

Topical antibiotics as a major contextual hazard toward bacteremia within selective digestive decontamination studies: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Among methods for preventing pneumonia and possibly also bacteremia in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, Selective Digestive Decontamination (SDD) appears most effective within randomized concurrent controlled trials (RCCT’s) although more recent trials have been cluster randomized. However, of the SDD components, whether protocolized parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis (PPAP) is required, and whether the topical antibiotic actually presents a contextual hazard, remain unresolved. The objective here is to compare the bacteremia rates and patterns of isolates in SDD-RCCT’s versus the broader evidence base. METHODS: Bacteremia incidence proportion data were extracted from component (control and intervention) groups decanted from studies investigating antibiotic (SDD) or non-antibiotic methods of VAP prevention and summarized using random effects meta-analysis of study and group level data. A reference category of groups derived from purely observational studies without any prevention method under study provided a benchmark incidence. RESULTS: Within SDD RCCTs, the mean bacteremia incidence among concurrent component groups not exposed to PPAP (27 control; 17.1%; 13.1-22.1% and 12 intervention groups; 16.2%; 9.1-27.3%) is double that of the benchmark bacteremia incidence derived from 39 benchmark groups (8.3; 6.8-10.2%) and also 20 control groups from studies of non-antibiotic methods (7.1%; 4.8 – 10.5). There is a selective increase in coagulase negative staphylococci (CNS) but not in Pseudomonas aeruginosa among bacteremia isolates within control groups of SDD-RCCT’s versus benchmark groups with data available. CONCLUSIONS: The topical antibiotic component of SDD presents a major contextual hazard toward bacteremia against which the PPAP component partially mitigates. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-014-0714-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

The Vaccination Model in Psychoneuroimmunology Research: A Review

This chapter explores the reasoning behind using the vaccination model to examine the influence of psychosocial factors on immunity. It then briefly discusses the mechanics of the vaccination response and the protocols used in psychoneuroimmunology vaccine research, before giving examples from the research literature of the studies examining relationships such as the association between stress and vaccination response. It also explores the ways the vaccination model can be used to answer key questions in psychoneuroimmunology, such as the following: “Does it matter when stressful life events occur relative to when the vaccine is received?” “What are the effects of prior exposure to the antigen?” “Do other psychosocial factors influence vaccine response besides stress?” Finally, it briefly considers the mechanisms underlying psychosocial factors and vaccination response associations and the future research needed to understand these better, and indeed to use current and future knowledge to improve and enhance vaccine responses in key at-risk populations

Italian guidelines for primary headaches: 2012 revised version

The first edition of the Italian diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for primary headaches in adults was published in J Headache Pain 2(Suppl. 1):105–190 (2001). Ten years later, the guideline committee of the Italian Society for the Study of Headaches (SISC) decided it was time to update therapeutic guidelines. A literature search was carried out on Medline database, and all articles on primary headache treatments in English, German, French and Italian published from February 2001 to December 2011 were taken into account. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) and meta-analyses were analysed for each drug. If RCT were lacking, open studies and case series were also examined. According to the previous edition, four levels of recommendation were defined on the basis of levels of evidence, scientific strength of evidence and clinical effectiveness. Recommendations for symptomatic and prophylactic treatment of migraine and cluster headache were therefore revised with respect to previous 2001 guidelines and a section was dedicated to non-pharmacological treatment. This article reports a summary of the revised version published in extenso in an Italian version

Successful operative management of an upper lumbar spinal canal stenosis resulting in multilevel lower nerve root radiculopathy

Lumbar stenosis is a common disorder, usually characterized clinically by neurogenic claudication with or without lumbar/sacral radiculopathy corresponding to the level of stenosis. We present a case of lumbar stenosis manifesting as a multilevel radiculopathy inferior to the nerve roots at the level of the stenosis. A 55-year-old gentleman presented with bilateral lower extremity pain with neurogenic claudication in an L5/S1 distribution (posterior thigh, calf, into the foot) concomitant with dorsiflexion and plantarflexion weakness. Imaging revealed grade I spondylolisthesis of L3 on L4 with severe spinal canal stenosis at L3-L4, mild left L4-L5 disc herniation, no stenosis at L5-S1, and no instability. EMG revealed active and chronic L5 and S1 radiculopathy. The patient underwent bilateral L3-L4 hemilaminotomy with left L4-L5 microdiscectomy for treatment of his L3-L4 stenosis. Postoperatively, he exhibited significant improvement in dorsiflexion and plantarflexion. The L5-S1 level was not involved in the operative decompression. Patients with radiculopathy and normal imaging at the level corresponding to the radiculopathy should not be ruled out for operative intervention should they have imaging evidence of lumbar stenosis superior to the expected affected level