Standardized statement for the ethical use of human cadaveric tissues in anatomy research papers: Recommendations from Anatomical Journal Editors-in-Chief

Human cadaveric donors are essential for research in the anatomical sciences. However, many research papers in the anatomical sciences often omit a statement regarding the ethical use of the donor cadavers or, as no current standardized versions exist, use language that is extremely varied. To rectify this issue, 22 editors-in-chief of anatomical journals, representing 17 different countries, developed standardized and simplified language that can be used by authors of studies that use human cadaveric tissues. The goal of these editor recommendations is to standardize the writing approach by which the ethical use of cadaveric donors is acknowledged in anatomical studies that use donor human cadavers. Such sections in anatomical papers will help elevate our discipline and promote standardized language use in others non anatomy journals and also other media outlets that use cadaveric tissues.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

A randomized trial of tigecycline versus ampicillin-sulbactam or amoxicillin-clavulanate for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections

Background: Complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs) frequently result in hospitalization with significant morbidity and mortality.Methods: In this phase 3b/4 parallel, randomized, open-label, comparative study, 531 subjects with cSSSI received tigecycline (100 mg initial dose, then 50 mg intravenously every 12 hrs) or ampicillin-sulbactam 1.5-3 g IV every 6 hrs or amoxicillin-clavulanate 1.2 g IV every 6-8 hrs. Vancomycin could be added at the discretion of the investigator to the comparator arm if methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was confirmed or suspected within 72 hrs of enrollment. The primary endpoint was clinical response in the clinically evaluable (CE) population at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit. Microbiologic response and safety were also assessed. The modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population comprised 531 subjects (tigecycline, n = 268; comparator, n = 263) and 405 were clinically evaluable (tigecycline, n = 209; comparator, n = 196).Results: In the CE population, 162/209 (77.5%) tigecycline-treated subjects and 152/196 (77.6%) comparator-treated subjects were clinically cured (difference 0.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.7, 8.6). The eradication rates at the subject level for the microbiologically evaluable (ME) population were 79.2% in the tigecycline treatment group and 76.8% in the comparator treatment group (difference 2.4; 95% CI: -9.6, 14.4) at the TOC assessment. Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea rates were higher in the tigecycline group.Conclusions: Tigecycline was generally safe and effective in the treatment of cSSSIs.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00368537. © 2012 Matthews et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd