The last animal: cosmopolitanism in The Last Man

No description supplie

Intellectual profile in school-aged children with borderline intellectual functioning

Background: Little is currently known about borderline intellectual functioning (BIF), a condition characterized by an intelligence quotient between one and two standard deviations below the average, that affects about 14% of the population. Aims: The present study aimed to analyze the intellectual profile of school-aged children with BIF. Method and Procedure: The WISC-IV was administered to 204 children with BIF attending Italian primary and lower secondary school, and their profile was compared with that of a control group of typically developing (TD) children. Results: The WISC-IV profile of the children with BIF differed from that of the TD children, and the former’s performance was worse than the latter’s in all the measures considered. The children with BIF also showed significant differences between the four main factor indices, scoring lowest for working memory, while the TD control group’s profile was flat (as expected on the grounds of standardization criteria). No differences were found between the profiles of children with versus without a comorbid neurodevelopmental disorder. Discussion: Our results support the hypothesis that individuals with BIF have a characteristic profile with specific weaknesses

Structural differences across multiple visual cortical regions in the absence of cone function in congenital achromatopsia

Most individuals with congenital achromatopsia (ACHM) carry mutations that affect the retinal phototransduction pathway of cone photoreceptors, fundamental to both high acuity vision and colour perception. As the central fovea is occupied solely by cones, achromats have an absence of retinal input to the visual cortex and a small central area of blindness. Additionally, those with complete ACHM have no colour perception, and colour processing regions of the ventral cortex also lack typical chromatic signals from the cones. This study examined the cortical morphology (grey matter volume, cortical thickness and cortical surface area) of multiple visual cortical regions in ACHM (n=15) compared to normally sighted controls (n=42) to determine the cortical changes that are associated with the retinal characteristics of ACHM. Surface-based morphometry was applied to T1-weighted MRI in atlas-defined early, ventral and dorsal visual regions of interest. Reduced grey matter volume in V1, V2, V3 and V4 was found in ACHM compared to controls, driven by a reduction in cortical surface area as there was no significant reduction in cortical thickness. Cortical surface area (but not thickness) was reduced in a wide range of areas (V1, V2, V3, TO1, V4 and LO1). Reduction in early visual areas with large foveal representations (V1, V2 and V3) suggests that the lack of foveal input to the visual cortex was a major driving factor in morphological changes in ACHM. However, the significant reduction in ventral area V4 coupled with the lack of difference in dorsal areas V3a and V3b suggest that deprivation of chromatic signals to visual cortex in ACHM may also contribute to changes in cortical morphology. This research shows that the congenital lack of cone input to the visual cortex can lead to widespread structural changes across multiple visual areas

An evaluation of the completeness of safety reporting in reports of complementary and alternative medicine trials

Abstract Background Adequate reporting of safety in publications of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is a pre-requisite for accurate and comprehensive profile evaluation of conventional as well as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments. Clear and concise information on the definition, frequency, and severity of adverse events (AEs) is necessary for assessing the benefit-harm ratio of any intervention. The objectives of this study are to assess the quality of safety reporting in CAM RCTs; to explore the influence of different trial characteristics on the quality of safety reporting. Methods Survey of safety reporting in RCTs published in 2009 across 15 widely used CAM interventions identified from the Cochrane Collaboration's CAM Field specialized register of trials. Primary outcome measures, the adequacy of reporting of AEs; was defined and categorized according to the CONSORT for harms extension; the percentage of words devoted to the reporting of safety in the entire report and in the results section. Results Two-hundred and five trials were included in the review. Of these, 15% (31/205) reported that no harms were observed during the trial period. Of the remaining 174 trials reporting any safety information, only 21% (36/174) had adequate safety reporting. For all trials, the median percentage of words devoted to the reporting of safety in the results section was 2.6. Moreover, 69% (n = 141) of all trials devoted a lesser or equal percentage of words to safety compared to author affiliations. Of the predictor variables used in regression analysis, multicenter trials had more words devoted to safety in the results section than single centre trials (P = 0.045). Conclusions An evaluation of safety reporting in the reports of CAM RCTs across 15 different CAM interventions demonstrated that the reporting of harms was largely inadequate. The quality of reporting safety information in primary reports of CAM randomized trials requires improvement.</p

An Evaluation of Epidemiological and Reporting Characteristics of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Systematic Reviews (SRs)

<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Systematic reviews (SRs) are abundant. The optimal reporting of SRs is critical to enable clinicians to use their findings to make informed treatment decisions. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies are widely used therefore it is critical that conduct and reporting of systematic research in this field be of high quality. Here, methodological and reporting characteristics of a sample of CAM-related SRs and a sample of control SRs are evaluated and compared.</p> <h3>Methods</h3><p>MEDLINE® was searched to identify non-Cochrane SRs indexed from January 2010 to May 2011. Control SRs were retrieved and a search filter was used to identify CAM SRs. Citations were screened and publications that met a pre-specified definition of a SR were included. Pre-designed, standardized data extraction forms were developed to capture reporting and methodological characteristics of the included reviews. Where appropriate, samples were compared descriptively.</p> <h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 349 SRs were identified, of which 174 were CAM-related SRs and 175 were conventional SRs. We compared 131 CAM-related non-Cochrane SRs to the 175 conventional non-Cochrane reviews. Fifty-seven percent (75/131) of CAM SRs specified a primary outcome compared to 21% (37/175) of conventional sample reviews. Reporting of publication bias occurred in less than 5% (6/131) of the CAM sample versus 46% (80/175) of the conventional sample of SRs. Source of funding was frequently and consistently under-reported. Less than 5% (11/306) of all SRs reported public availability of a review protocol.</p> <h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The two samples of reviews exhibited different strengths and weaknesses. In some cases there were consistencies across items which indicate the need for continued improvements in reporting for all SR reports. We advise authors to utilise the PRISMA Statement or other SR guidance when reporting SRs.</p> </div

Reporting Characteristics of systematic reviews.

h<p>Reported as either “systematic review” or “meta-analysis”.</p>i<p>Includes 100% verification.</p>j<p><b>Control Group:</b> GRADE <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Guyatt1" target="_blank">[37]</a>; AHRQ Guidance <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Viswanathan1" target="_blank">[41]</a>; Egger’s tool <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Egger2" target="_blank">[44]</a>; Downs and Black <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Downs1" target="_blank">[22]</a>; Zaza et al. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Zaza1" target="_blank">[23]</a>; publication bias only assessed; International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Cox1" target="_blank">[45]</a>; The Delphi list <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Verhagen1" target="_blank">[46]</a>; US Preventative Services Task Force criteria <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Harris3" target="_blank">[47]</a>; Cho and Bero <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Cho1" target="_blank">[48]</a>; Sauerland <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Sauerland1" target="_blank">[49]</a>; America academy of neurology <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-9" target="_blank">[50]</a>; PEDro <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-deMorton1" target="_blank">[51]</a>; COREQ <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Tong1" target="_blank">[52]</a>; West <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-West1" target="_blank">[53]</a>; Schulz’s Allocation concealment <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Schulz2" target="_blank">[54]</a>; outcome reporting bias only; Centre of evidence-based medicine at the University of Oxford <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Phillips2" target="_blank">[55]</a>; MINORS <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-4" target="_blank">[24]</a>; DTA assessment; “assessed based on study design”; labelled sensitivity analysis as quality assessment; adjusted analysis by characteristics calling it quality assessment; <b>CAM Group</b>: GRADE <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Guyatt1" target="_blank">[37]</a>; NICE <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-8" target="_blank">[40]</a>; EPC based <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Viswanathan1" target="_blank">[41]</a>; Downs and Black <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Downs1" target="_blank">[22]</a>; Delphi list <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Verhagen1" target="_blank">[46]</a>; PEDro <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-deMorton1" target="_blank">[51]</a>; Allocation concealment <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Schulz2" target="_blank">[54]</a>; Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Phillips2" target="_blank">[55]</a>; McMaster Quality Assessment Scale of Harms (McHarm) <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Santaguida1" target="_blank">[56]</a>; Oxman and Guyatt <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Oxman1" target="_blank">[57]</a>; Centre for reviews and dissemination <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Khan1" target="_blank">[58]</a>; MINORS <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-4" target="_blank">[24]</a>; CASP <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-10" target="_blank">[59]</a>; Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Harbour1" target="_blank">[60]</a>; Stetler’s Evidence Ranking system <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Stetler1" target="_blank">[61]</a>; Tulder Score <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-van1" target="_blank">[62]</a>; MINORS <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-4" target="_blank">[24]</a>; Wilson and Lawrence Scores; RAC; Ostello.</p>k<p>Gray Literature searching refers to systematic review search methods to identify primary studies which are not identified via standard searching methods <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536#pone.0053536-Debachere1" target="_blank">[63]</a>.</p>l<p>Independent of I².</p