World allergy organization anaphylaxis guidance 2020

Anaphylaxis is the most severe clinical presentation of acute systemic allergic reactions. The occurrence of anaphylaxis has increased in recent years, and subsequently, there is a need to continue disseminating knowledge on the diagnosis and management, so every healthcare professional is prepared to deal with such emergencies. The rationale of this updated position document is the need to keep guidance aligned with the current state of the art of knowledge in anaphylaxis management. The World Allergy Organization (WAO) anaphylaxis guidelines were published in 2011, and the current guidance adopts their major indications, incorporating some novel changes. Intramuscular epinephrine (adrenaline) continues to be the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis. Nevertheless, its use remains suboptimal. After an anaphylaxis occurrence, patients should be referred to a specialist to assess the potential cause and to be educated on prevention of recurrences and self-management. The limited availability of epinephrine auto-injectors remains a major problem in many countries, as well as their affordability for some patients

El campo de las ciencias y la educación superior entre el monopolio del inglés y el plurilingüismo: elementos para una política del lenguaje en América Latina

El campo de las ciencias y la educación superior constituye un espacio estratégico donde se reflejan con gran nitidez los problemas de la globalización del inglés como única lengua híper-central: De un modelo plurilingüe restringido de unas pocas lenguas, el alemán, francés e inglés que expresaban el campo científico hace un siglo, hemos transitado hacia un predominio casi absoluto del inglés. Hoy nos encontramos ante una disyuntiva crucial, con posibles consecuencias irreversibles: o transitamos de una hegemonía del inglés a un total monopolio que excluiría a todas las demás lenguas de las ciencias; o avanzamos, por el contrario, a través de un siglo XXI de renovado carácter plurilingüe que refuerce, en el campo estratégico de la ciencia y enseñanza superior, la diversidad de lenguas, estrategias discursivas y modelos culturales de hacer ciencia y educación. Desde una perspectiva latinoamericana, destacan tres razones de peso que nos deberían impulsar a oponernos al monolingüismo inglés y a reforzar el español, el portugués y otras lenguas en los espacios vitales de las ciencias: los riesgos teórico-epistemológicos de un monolingüismo para la creatividad en las ciencias; el problema de las asimetrías crecientes de poder y conocimientos entre comunidades lingüísticas de científicos con el "English only"; y las consecuencias negativas del monolingüismo anglófono para una cooperación internacional simétrica. En este texto se analizará el carácter sesgado de los estudios sobre la distribución de las lenguas en las publicaciones indexadas cuando éstas se toman como representativas del campo científico. Como alternativa propongo concebir el espacio de las ciencias y la educación superior en su conjunto, estructurado como campo sociológico y comunicacional (Bourdieu) que integra las esferas de la producción, circulación y formación, como unidad y objeto para analizar el uso real de las lenguas. Propondré finalmente elementos de un modelo plurilingüe para definir políticas integradas del lenguaje, las ciencias y la educación superior en América Latina

Risk and safety requirements for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in allergology : World Allergy Organization Statement

Peer reviewe

Oral proficiency testing in the real world: Answers to frequently asked questions. Foreign Language Annals

About the ACTFL OPI The ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) is a valid and reliable testing method that measures how well a person speaks a language (see On the surface, the interview is interactive and continuously adapts to the interests, experiences, and abilities of the speaker. Below the surface, the OPI follows a specific set of procedures to measure general spoken language by determining patterns of strengths and weaknesses. It establishes a speaker' s level of consistent functional ability as well as the upper limits of that ability. Although the conversational format of each ACTFL OPI follows an established protocol, there is no script or prescribed set of questions. The ACTFL OPI is a criterion-referenced test. It compares a sample of speech with the 10 proficiency levels outlined in the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines-Speaking, Revised (BreinerSanders et al., 2000). The Guidelines describe language proficiency from Novice-Low (little or no functional ability in spoken language) to Superior (ability to function in formal and informal contexts, and to state and support opinions and hypotheses in extended discourse, with a high degree of accuracy). The 10 proficiency levels of the ACTFL rating scale are Superior, Advanced- The OPI assesses language proficiency in terms of the ability to respond to questions and tasks posed in a structured interview. The OPI does not compare one individual' s performance with another' s. Rather, it compares each individual' s performance to the assessment criteria. The assessment criteria used to determine a rating include global tasks and functions, contexts and content areas, text type, and accuracy (see Official ACTFL OPIs are conducted and rated by ACTFL certified proficiency testers. The testers are highly specialized language professionals who complete a rigorous training process and participate in ongoing quality control and tester-norming activities. Each interview is tape recorded and assigned an initial rating by the tester. Under the supervision of the ACTFL testing office, the interview is blindly rated by a second certified tester. If the ratings disagree, the interview is arbitrated by a third certified tester. When two ratings agree exactly, an official rating is assigned and an official ACTFL OPI certificate is issued. FAQs 1 and 2 Does taking an OPI over the phone produce a different rating than a face-to-face interview? Are there differences in testing performance from one testing occasion to another when there is no significant opportunity for learning or forgetting between the two tests