Evidence that a Panel of Neurodegeneration Biomarkers Predicts Vasospasm, Infarction, and Outcome in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Biomarkers for neurodegeneration could be early prognostic measures of brain damage and dysfunction in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) with clinical and medical applications. Recently, we developed a new panel of neurodegeneration biomarkers, and report here on their relationships with pathophysiological complications and outcomes following severe aSAH. Fourteen patients provided serial cerebrospinal fluid samples for up to 10 days and were evaluated by ultrasonography, angiography, magnetic resonance imaging, and clinical examination. Functional outcomes were assessed at hospital discharge and 6–9 months thereafter. Eight biomarkers for acute brain damage were quantified: calpain-derived α-spectrin N- and C-terminal fragments (CCSntf and CCSctf), hypophosphorylated neurofilament H

Using grounded theory method in information systems: The researcher as blank slate and other myths

The use of grounded theory method (GTM) as a research method in information systems (IS) has gradually increased over the years as qualitative research in general has become more prevalent. The method offers a systematic way to generate theory from data, but is rarely used to its full potential in IS as a number of myths and misunderstandings about GTM prevent researchers from getting the full potential out of the method. To address this problem, we advance the general level of knowledge of GTM. We clarify aspects of the method that are often misunderstood by novice users or casual observers and provide guidance to address common problems. Exemplars from the IS literature are used to illustrate the concepts and to promote the informed use of the methodology. By doing so, this paper will contribute to improving the use of the method and to the quality and dissemination of grounded theory research outcomes. © 2013 JIT Palgrave Macmillan All rights reserved

Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study A global inception cohort study

Fluid challenges (FCs) are one of the most commonly used therapies in critically ill patients and represent the cornerstone of hemodynamic management in intensive care units. There are clear benefits and harms from fluid therapy. Limited data on the indication, type, amount and rate of an FC in critically ill patients exist in the literature. The primary aim was to evaluate how physicians conduct FCs in terms of type, volume, and rate of given fluid; the secondary aim was to evaluate variables used to trigger an FC and to compare the proportion of patients receiving further fluid administration based on the response to the FC.This was an observational study conducted in ICUs around the world. Each participating unit entered a maximum of 20 patients with one FC.2213 patients were enrolled and analyzed in the study. The median [interquartile range] amount of fluid given during an FC was 500 ml (500-1000). The median time was 24 min (40-60 min), and the median rate of FC was 1000 [500-1333] ml/h. The main indication for FC was hypotension in 1211 (59 %, CI 57-61 %). In 43 % (CI 41-45 %) of the cases no hemodynamic variable was used. Static markers of preload were used in 785 of 2213 cases (36 %, CI 34-37 %). Dynamic indices of preload responsiveness were used in 483 of 2213 cases (22 %, CI 20-24 %). No safety variable for the FC was used in 72 % (CI 70-74 %) of the cases. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who received further fluids after the FC between those with a positive, with an uncertain or with a negatively judged response.The current practice and evaluation of FC in critically ill patients are highly variable. Prediction of fluid responsiveness is not used routinely, safety limits are rarely used, and information from previous failed FCs is not always taken into account