Sponge spicules in abyssal and bathyal sediments of the NE Atlantic

Siliceous sponge spicules are concurrently mentioned in deep-sea expedition reports as constituents of abyssal and bathyal sediments, al though generally comprising only a few percent of the single samples

Taxonomy, biogeography and DNA barcodes of Geodiaspecies (Porifera, Demospongiae, Tetractinellida) in the Atlantic boreo-arctic region

Geodia species north of 60°N in the Atlantic appeared in the literature for the first time when Bowerbank described Geodia barretti and G. macandrewii in 1858 from western Norway. Since then, a number of species have been based on material from various parts of the region: G. simplex, Isops phlegraei, I. pallida, I. sphaeroides, Synops pyriformis, G. parva, G. normani, G. atlantica, Sidonops mesotriaena (now called G. hentscheli), and G. simplicissima. In addition to these 12 nominal species, four species described from elsewhere are claimed to have been identified in material from the northeast Atlantic, namely G. nodastrella and G. cydonium (and its synonyms Cydonium muelleri and Geodia gigas ). In this paper, we revise the boreo-arctic Geodia species using morphological, molecular, and biogeographical data. We notably compare northwest and northeast Atlantic specimens. Biological data (reproduction, biochemistry, microbiology, epibionts) for each species are also reviewed. Our results show that there are six valid species of boreo-arctic Atlantic Geodia while other names are synonyms or mis-identifications. Geodia barretti, G. atlantica, G. macandrewii, and G. hentscheli are well established and widely distributed. The same goes for Geodia phlegraei, but this species shows a striking geographical and bathymetric variation, which led us to recognize two species, G. phlegraei and G. parva(here resurrected). Some Geodia are arctic species (G. hentscheli, G. parva), while others are typically boreal (G. atlantica, G. barretti, G. phlegraei , G. macandrewii). No morphological differences were found between specimens from the northeast and northwest Atlantic, except for G. parva . The Folmer cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) fragment is unique for every species and invariable over their whole distribution range, except for G. barretti which had two haplotypes. 18S is unique for four species but cannot discriminate G. phlegraei and G. parva. Two keys to the boreo-arctic Geodia are included, one based on external morphology, the other based on spicule morphology

Pain relief that matters to patients: systematic review of empirical studies assessing the minimum clinically important difference in acute pain

BACKGROUND: The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is used to interpret the clinical relevance of results reported by trials and meta-analyses as well as to plan sample sizes in new studies. However, there is a lack of consensus about the size of MCID in acute pain, which is a core symptom affecting patients across many clinical conditions. METHODS: We identified and systematically reviewed empirical studies of MCID in acute pain. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, and included prospective studies determining MCID using a patient-reported anchor and a one-dimensional pain scale (e.g. 100 mm visual analogue scale). We summarised results and explored reasons for heterogeneity applying meta-regression, subgroup analyses and individual patient data meta-analyses. RESULTS: We included 37 studies (8479 patients). Thirty-five studies used a mean change approach, i.e. MCID was assessed as the mean difference in pain score among patients who reported a minimum degree of improvement, while seven studies used a threshold approach, i.e. MCID was assessed as the threshold in pain reduction associated with the best accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) for identifying improved patients. Meta-analyses found considerable heterogeneity between studies (absolute MCID: I(2) = 93%, relative MCID: I(2) = 75%) and results were therefore presented qualitatively, while analyses focused on exploring reasons for heterogeneity. The reported absolute MCID values ranged widely from 8 to 40 mm (standardised to a 100 mm scale) and the relative MCID values from 13% to 85%. From analyses of individual patient data (seven studies, 918 patients), we found baseline pain strongly associated with absolute, but not relative, MCID as patients with higher baseline pain needed larger pain reduction to perceive relief. Subgroup analyses showed that the definition of improved patients (one or several categories improvement or meaningful change) and the design of studies (single or multiple measurements) also influenced MCID values. CONCLUSIONS: The MCID in acute pain varied greatly between studies and was influenced by baseline pain, definitions of improved patients and study design. MCID is context-specific and potentially misguiding if determined, applied or interpreted inappropriately. Explicit and conscientious reflections on the choice of a reference value are required when using MCID to classify research results as clinically important or trivial