The best way to conduct intervention research: methodological considerations

This article is a theoretical contribution to the debate about which qualitative interventionmethodology is best suited to building stronger partnerships between researchers and practitioners in educational research. In the first part of this article, two types of intervention methodologies gaining impact in the field are contrasted in light of Yrjö Engeström’s criticism. This discussion lays the groundwork for the main claim in the second part of this article that dialogical work between researchers and practitioners focusing on ‘contradictions’ and the ‘object of activity,’ can provide analytical tools to improve understanding of challenges in intervention research

Peripheral arterial disease, prevalence and cumulative risk factor profile analysis.

BACKGROUND: The primary aim of the present study was to determine the cumulative effect of a set of peripheral artery disease (PAD) risk factors among age, gender and race/ethnicity groups in the United States. METHODS: We examined data from a nationally representative sample of the US population (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey [NHANES], 1999-2004). A total of 7058 subjects 40 years or older that completed the interview, medical examination and had ankle-brachial index (ABI) measurements were included in this study. RESULTS: The age- and sex-standardized prevalence of PAD was 4.6 % (standard error [SE] 0.3%).The highest prevalence of PAD was observed among elderly, non-Hispanic Blacks and women. In a multivariable age-, gender- and race/ethnicity-adjusted model hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and smoking were retained as PAD risk factors (p ≤ 0.05 for each). The odds of PAD increased with each additional risk factor present from a non-significant 1.5-fold increase (O.R 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9-2.6) in the presence of one risk factor, to more than ten-fold (OR 10.2, 95% CI 6.4-16.3) in the presence of three or more risk factors. In stratified analysis, non-Hispanic Blacks (OR 14.7, 95% CI 2.1-104.1) and women (OR 18.6, 95% CI 7.1-48.7) were particularly sensitive to this cumulative effect. CONCLUSION: In a large nationally representative sample, an aggregate set of risk factors that included diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, hypertension and smoking significantly increase the likelihood of prevalent PAD. A cumulative risk factor analysis highlights important susceptibility differences among different population groups and provides additional evidence to redefine screening strategies in PAD

Development of an International Odor Identification Test for Children: The Universal Sniff Test

Objective: To assess olfactory function in children and to create and validate an odor identification test to diagnose olfactory dysfunction in children, which we called the Universal Sniff (U-Sniff) test.  Study design: This is a multicenter study involving 19 countries. The U-Sniff test was developed in 3 phases including 1760 children age 5-7 years. Phase 1: identification of potentially recognizable odors; phase 2: selection of odorants for the odor identification test; and phase 3: evaluation of the test and acquisition of normative data. Test—retest reliability was evaluated in a subgroup of children (n = 27), and the test was validated using children with congenital anosmia (n = 14).  Results: Twelve odors were familiar to children and, therefore, included in the U-Sniff test. Children scored a mean ± SD of 9.88 ± 1.80 points out of 12. Normative data was obtained and reported for each country. The U-Sniff test demonstrated a high test—retest reliability (r27 = 0.83, P < .001) and enabled discrimination between normosmia and children with congenital anosmia with a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 86%.  Conclusions: The U-Sniff is a valid and reliable method of testing olfaction in children and can be used internationally

The DBCLS BioHackathon: standardization and interoperability for bioinformatics web services and workflows. The DBCLS BioHackathon Consortium*

Web services have become a key technology for bioinformatics, since life science databases are globally decentralized and the exponential increase in the amount of available data demands for efficient systems without the need to transfer entire databases for every step of an analysis. However, various incompatibilities among database resources and analysis services make it difficult to connect and integrate these into interoperable workflows. To resolve this situation, we invited domain specialists from web service providers, client software developers, Open Bio* projects, the BioMoby project and researchers of emerging areas where a standard exchange data format is not well established, for an intensive collaboration entitled the BioHackathon 2008. The meeting was hosted by the Database Center for Life Science (DBCLS) and Computational Biology Research Center (CBRC) and was held in Tokyo from February 11th to 15th, 2008. In this report we highlight the work accomplished and the common issues arisen from this event, including the standardization of data exchange formats and services in the emerging fields of glycoinformatics, biological interaction networks, text mining, and phyloinformatics. In addition, common shared object development based on BioSQL, as well as technical challenges in large data management, asynchronous services, and security are discussed. Consequently, we improved interoperability of web services in several fields, however, further cooperation among major database centers and continued collaborative efforts between service providers and software developers are still necessary for an effective advance in bioinformatics web service technologies

International clinical assessment of smell:An international, cross-sectional survey of current practice in the assessment of olfaction

Objectives: Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is common and carries significant personal and societal burden. Accurate assessment is necessary for good clinical and research practice but is highly dependent on the assessment technique used. Current practice with regards to UK/international clinical assessment is unknown. We aimed to capture current clinical practice, with reference to contemporaneously available guidelines. We further aimed to compare UK to international practice. Design: Anonymous online questionnaire with cross-sectional non-probability sampling. Subgroup analysis according to subspeciality training in rhinology (‘rhinologists’ and ‘non-rhinologists’) was performed, with geographical comparisons only made according to subgroup. Participants: ENT surgeons who assess olfaction. Results: Responses were received from 465 clinicians (217 from UK and 17 countries total). Country-specific response rate varied, with the lowest rate being obtained from Japan (1.4%) and highest from Greece (72.5%). Most UK clinicians do not perform psychophysical smell testing during any of the presented clinical scenarios—though rhinologists did so more often than non-rhinologists. The most frequent barriers to testing related to service provision (e.g., time/funding limitations). Whilst there was variability in practice, in general, international respondents performed psychophysical testing more frequently than those from the UK. Approximately 3/4 of all respondents said they would like to receive training in psychophysical smell testing. Patient reported outcome measures were infrequently used in the UK/internationally. More UK respondents performed diagnostic MRI scanning than international respondents. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive UK-based, and only international survey of clinical practice in the assessment of OD. We present recommendations to improve practice, including increased education and funding for psychophysical smell testing. We hope this will promote accurate and reliable olfactory assessment, as is the accepted standard in other sensory systems

Cross-cutting principles for planetary health education

Since the 2015 launch of the Rockefeller Foundation Lancet Commission on planetary health,1 an enormous groundswell of interest in planetary health education has emerged across many disciplines, institutions, and geographical regions. Advancing these global efforts in planetary health education will equip the next generation of scholars to address crucial questions in this emerging field and support the development of a community of practice. To provide a foundation for the growing interest and efforts in this field, the Planetary Health Alliance has facilitated the first attempt to create a set of principles for planetary health education that intersect education at all levels, across all scales, and in all regions of the world—ie, a set of cross-cutting principles

Post-intervention Status in Patients With Refractory Myasthenia Gravis Treated With Eculizumab During REGAIN and Its Open-Label Extension

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether eculizumab helps patients with anti-acetylcholine receptor-positive (AChR+) refractory generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) achieve the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America (MGFA) post-intervention status of minimal manifestations (MM), we assessed patients' status throughout REGAIN (Safety and Efficacy of Eculizumab in AChR+ Refractory Generalized Myasthenia Gravis) and its open-label extension. METHODS: Patients who completed the REGAIN randomized controlled trial and continued into the open-label extension were included in this tertiary endpoint analysis. Patients were assessed for the MGFA post-intervention status of improved, unchanged, worse, MM, and pharmacologic remission at defined time points during REGAIN and through week 130 of the open-label study. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients completed REGAIN and continued into the open-label study (eculizumab/eculizumab: 56; placebo/eculizumab: 61). At week 26 of REGAIN, more eculizumab-treated patients than placebo-treated patients achieved a status of improved (60.7% vs 41.7%) or MM (25.0% vs 13.3%; common OR: 2.3; 95% CI: 1.1-4.5). After 130 weeks of eculizumab treatment, 88.0% of patients achieved improved status and 57.3% of patients achieved MM status. The safety profile of eculizumab was consistent with its known profile and no new safety signals were detected. CONCLUSION: Eculizumab led to rapid and sustained achievement of MM in patients with AChR+ refractory gMG. These findings support the use of eculizumab in this previously difficult-to-treat patient population. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: REGAIN, NCT01997229; REGAIN open-label extension, NCT02301624. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that, after 26 weeks of eculizumab treatment, 25.0% of adults with AChR+ refractory gMG achieved MM, compared with 13.3% who received placebo

Minimal Symptom Expression' in Patients With Acetylcholine Receptor Antibody-Positive Refractory Generalized Myasthenia Gravis Treated With Eculizumab

The efficacy and tolerability of eculizumab were assessed in REGAIN, a 26-week, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive (AChR+) refractory generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG), and its open-label extension

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field