Importance of Replication and Experimental Analysis in Behavioral Science: Examination of Factors Affecting Infants Choices

Researchers suggest individuals preference for others similar to themselves is innate, not learned. Mahajan and Wynn (2012) asked infants seated in their parents lap (N = 32) to choose between two foods, watch a show in which one puppet liked one food but not the other and the second puppet expressed the opposite preferences, and then choose one of the puppets; more infants (84%) chose the similar puppet, the one with the same food preference as the infant. These data are cited as evidence for our innate preference for similar others. We replicated and extended their methodology by including a parent bias manipulation and within-subject repeated measures. Infants (N = 24) were randomly assigned to make their first puppet choice before (Group 1) or after (Group 2) the parent bias manipulation. Few group differences were noted. On the first trial, a total of 37.5% of infants chose the similar puppet. Across at least 80% of trials, 12.5% of infants chose the similar puppet; 75% chose a puppet on the same side. Moreover, 16 (67%) parents reported their infants had little history with the two study foods. Results suggest factors other than innate preference account for infants puppet selections

Importance of Replication and Experimental Analysis in Behavioral Science: Examination of Factors Affecting Infants Choices

Researchers suggest individuals preference for others similar to themselves is innate, not learned. Mahajan and Wynn (2012) asked infants seated in their parents lap (N = 32) to choose between two foods, watch a show in which one puppet liked one food but not the other and the second puppet expressed the opposite preferences, and then choose one of the puppets; more infants (84%) chose the similar puppet, the one with the same food preference as the infant. These data are cited as evidence for our innate preference for similar others. We replicated and extended their methodology by including a parent bias manipulation and within-subject repeated measures. Infants (N = 24) were randomly assigned to make their first puppet choice before (Group 1) or after (Group 2) the parent bias manipulation. Few group differences were noted. On the first trial, a total of 37.5% of infants chose the similar puppet. Across at least 80% of trials, 12.5% of infants chose the similar puppet; 75% chose a puppet on the same side. Moreover, 16 (67%) parents reported their infants had little history with the two study foods. Results suggest factors other than innate preference account for infants puppet selections

Approaches to Distal Upper-Extremity Trauma: A Comparison of Plastic, Orthopedic, and Hand Surgeons in Academic Practice.

BackgroundHand trauma call duties at university medical centers are traditionally split among plastic surgeons and orthopedic surgeons, frequently without additional fellowship training in hand and upper-extremity surgery. Differences in operative approach between these groups have never been specifically described. The University Health Consortium-Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Practice Solutions Center database contains comprehensive, factual, billing and coding data from 90 academic medical centers in the United States and can be used to characterize the practice patterns of various academic surgical specialties.ObjectiveTo characterize and compare the clinical experience of academic plastic, orthopedic, and hand surgeons in addressing traumatic distal upper extremity injuries (using the Faculty Practice Solutions Center data set).MethodsAnnual data for CPT defined procedures related to traumatic injuries of the nail bed, finger, hand, wrist, and forearm performed by plastic, orthopedic, and hand surgeons during calendar years 2010 to 2013 were included in the study.ResultsFrom 2010 to 2013, the experience of fellowship-trained hand surgeons in treating traumatic distal upper extremity injuries was consistently greater than that of plastic surgeons and general orthopedic surgeons across all categories. Injuries of the nail bed were repaired more frequently by plastic surgeons than orthopedic surgeons (average 1.3 annual procedures per surgeon for plastic surgeons compared with 0.3 for orthopedic surgeons). Fractures and dislocations involving the phalanx and metacarpal were repaired equally by both groups, with plastic surgeons using predominantly percutaneous (38%) or open methods (45% of repairs), and orthopedic surgeons using mostly closed reduction (59% of repairs), splinting, and casting. Fractures and dislocations involving the carpal bones, radius, and ulna were more frequently repaired by orthopedic surgeons (average 23.2 procedures versus 2.6 for plastic surgeons), whereas tendon repairs in all segments were performed more frequently by plastic surgeons (average 13.7 procedures versus 2.5 for orthopedic surgeons). Replantation and repair of neurovascular injuries were exceedingly rare (less than 1 occurrence) in all groups for all years and are not specifically reported in Table 1. Similarly, incision and drainage procedures and decompressive fasciotomies of the distal upper extremity were uncommonly performed and also not included (Table 1 displays the mean annual procedures per surgeon by grouped CPT coded procedures, with overall averages displayed to the right. Figure 1 displays the proportions of intra-articular and extra-articular bony hand injuries treated by closed, open, and percutaneous methods by each specialty).ConclusionsA large degree of variation exists in the treatment of distal upper extremity injuries, based on specialty service. Hand surgeons, not surprisingly, have the most robust clinical experience, whereas plastic surgeons and orthopedic surgeons each display varying strengths and weaknesses, perhaps a consequence of their respective training

Approaches to Distal Upper-Extremity Trauma: A Comparison of Plastic, Orthopedic, and Hand Surgeons in Academic Practice.

BackgroundHand trauma call duties at university medical centers are traditionally split among plastic surgeons and orthopedic surgeons, frequently without additional fellowship training in hand and upper-extremity surgery. Differences in operative approach between these groups have never been specifically described. The University Health Consortium-Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Practice Solutions Center database contains comprehensive, factual, billing and coding data from 90 academic medical centers in the United States and can be used to characterize the practice patterns of various academic surgical specialties.ObjectiveTo characterize and compare the clinical experience of academic plastic, orthopedic, and hand surgeons in addressing traumatic distal upper extremity injuries (using the Faculty Practice Solutions Center data set).MethodsAnnual data for CPT defined procedures related to traumatic injuries of the nail bed, finger, hand, wrist, and forearm performed by plastic, orthopedic, and hand surgeons during calendar years 2010 to 2013 were included in the study.ResultsFrom 2010 to 2013, the experience of fellowship-trained hand surgeons in treating traumatic distal upper extremity injuries was consistently greater than that of plastic surgeons and general orthopedic surgeons across all categories. Injuries of the nail bed were repaired more frequently by plastic surgeons than orthopedic surgeons (average 1.3 annual procedures per surgeon for plastic surgeons compared with 0.3 for orthopedic surgeons). Fractures and dislocations involving the phalanx and metacarpal were repaired equally by both groups, with plastic surgeons using predominantly percutaneous (38%) or open methods (45% of repairs), and orthopedic surgeons using mostly closed reduction (59% of repairs), splinting, and casting. Fractures and dislocations involving the carpal bones, radius, and ulna were more frequently repaired by orthopedic surgeons (average 23.2 procedures versus 2.6 for plastic surgeons), whereas tendon repairs in all segments were performed more frequently by plastic surgeons (average 13.7 procedures versus 2.5 for orthopedic surgeons). Replantation and repair of neurovascular injuries were exceedingly rare (less than 1 occurrence) in all groups for all years and are not specifically reported in Table 1. Similarly, incision and drainage procedures and decompressive fasciotomies of the distal upper extremity were uncommonly performed and also not included (Table 1 displays the mean annual procedures per surgeon by grouped CPT coded procedures, with overall averages displayed to the right. Figure 1 displays the proportions of intra-articular and extra-articular bony hand injuries treated by closed, open, and percutaneous methods by each specialty).ConclusionsA large degree of variation exists in the treatment of distal upper extremity injuries, based on specialty service. Hand surgeons, not surprisingly, have the most robust clinical experience, whereas plastic surgeons and orthopedic surgeons each display varying strengths and weaknesses, perhaps a consequence of their respective training

Efficacy, durability, and safety of intravitreal faricimab up to every 16 weeks for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (TENAYA and LUCERNE): two randomised, double-masked, phase 3, non-inferiority trials

Background: Faricimab is a bispecific antibody that acts through dual inhibition of both angiopoietin-2 and vascular endothelial growth factor A. We report primary results of two phase 3 trials evaluating intravitreal faricimab with extension up to every 16 weeks for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Methods: TENAYA and LUCERNE were randomised, double-masked, non-inferiority trials across 271 sites worldwide. Treatment-naive patients with nAMD aged 50 years or older were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravitreal faricimab 6·0 mg up to every 16 weeks, based on protocol-defined disease activity assessments at weeks 20 and 24, or aflibercept 2·0 mg every 8 weeks. Randomisation was performed through an interactive voice or web-based response system using a stratified permuted block randomisation method. Patients, investigators, those assessing outcomes, and the funder were masked to group assignments. The primary endpoint was mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline averaged over weeks 40, 44, and 48 (prespecified non-inferiority margin of four letters), in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (TENAYA NCT03823287 and LUCERNE NCT03823300). Findings: Across the two trials, 1329 patients were randomly assigned between Feb 19 and Nov 19, 2019 (TENAYA n=334 faricimab and n=337 aflibercept), and between March 11 and Nov 1, 2019 (LUCERNE n=331 faricimab and n=327 aflibercept). BCVA change from baseline with faricimab was non-inferior to aflibercept in both TENAYA (adjusted mean change 5·8 letters [95% CI 4·6 to 7·1] and 5·1 letters [3·9 to 6·4]; treatment difference 0·7 letters [-1·1 to 2·5]) and LUCERNE (6·6 letters [5·3 to 7·8] and 6·6 letters [5·3 to 7·8]; treatment difference 0·0 letters [-1·7 to 1·8]). Rates of ocular adverse events were comparable between faricimab and aflibercept (TENAYA n=121 [36·3%] vs n=128 [38·1%], and LUCERNE n=133 [40·2%] vs n=118 [36·2%]). Interpretation: Visual benefits with faricimab given at up to 16-week intervals demonstrates its potential to meaningfully extend the time between treatments with sustained efficacy, thereby reducing treatment burden in patients with nAMD