Quantitative considerations in medium energy ion scattering depth profiling analysis of nanolayers

The high depth resolution capability of medium energy ion scattering (MEIS) is becoming increasingly relevant to the characterisation of nanolayers in e.g. microelectronics. In this paper we examine the attainable quantitative accuracy of MEIS depth profiling. Transparent but reliable analytical calculations are used to illustrate what can ultimately be achieved for dilute impurities in a silicon matrix and the significant element-dependence of the depth scale, for instance, is illustrated this way. Furthermore, the signal intensity-to-concentration conversion and its dependence on the depth of scattering is addressed. Notably, deviations from the Rutherford scattering cross section due to screening effects resulting in a non-coulombic interaction potential and the reduction of the yield owing to neutralization of the exiting, backscattered H+ and He+ projectiles are evaluated. The former mainly affects the scattering off heavy target atoms while the latter is most severe for scattering off light target atoms and can be less accurately predicted. However, a pragmatic approach employing an extensive data set of measured ion fractions for both H+ and He+ ions scattered off a range of surfaces, allows its parameterization. This has enabled the combination of both effects, which provides essential information regarding the yield dependence both on the projectile energy and the mass of the scattering atom. Although, absolute quantification, especially when using He+, may not always be achievable, relative quantification in which the sum of all species in a layer add up to 100%, is generally possible. This conclusion is supported by the provision of some examples of MEIS derived depth profiles of nanolayers. Finally, the relative benefits of either using H+ or He+ ions are briefly considered

Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is common after radical prostatectomy and can also occur in some circumstances after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Conservative management includes pelvic floor muscle training with or without biofeedback, electrical stimulation, extra-corporeal magnetic innervation (ExMI), compression devices (penile clamps), lifestyle changes, or a combination of methods.   OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of conservative management for urinary incontinence up to 12 months after transurethral, suprapubic, laparoscopic, radical retropubic or perineal prostatectomy, including any single conservative therapy or any combination of conservative therapies.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (5 February 2014), CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), EMBASE (January 2010 to Week 3 2014), CINAHL (January 1982 to 18 January 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (both searched 29 January 2014), and the reference lists of relevant articles.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating conservative interventions for urinary continence in men after prostatectomy.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or more review authors assessed the methodological quality of the trials and abstracted data. We tried to contact several authors of included studies to obtain extra information.  MAIN RESULTS: Fifty trials met the inclusion criteria, 45 in men after radical prostatectomy, four trials after TURP and one trial after either operation. The trials included 4717 men of whom 2736 had an active conservative intervention. There was considerable variation in the interventions, populations and outcome measures. Data were not available for many of the pre-stated outcomes. Men's symptoms improved over time irrespective of management.There was no evidence from eight trials that pelvic floor muscle training with or without biofeedback was better than control for men who had urinary incontinence up to 12 months after radical prostatectomy; the quality of the evidence was judged to be moderate (for example 57% with urinary incontinence in the intervention group versus 62% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) for incontinence after 12 months 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.22). One large multi-centre trial of one-to-one therapy showed no difference in any urinary or quality of life outcome measures and had narrow CIs. It seems unlikely that men benefit from one-to-one PFMT therapy after TURP. Individual small trials provided data to suggest that electrical stimulation, external magnetic innervation, or combinations of treatments might be beneficial but the evidence was limited. Amongst trials of conservative treatment for all men after radical prostatectomy, aimed at both treatment and prevention, there was moderate evidence of an overall benefit from pelvic floor muscle training versus control management in terms of reduction of urinary incontinence (for example 10% with urinary incontinence after one year in the intervention groups versus 32% in the control groups, RR for urinary incontinence 0.32, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.51). However, this finding was not supported by other data from pad tests. The findings should be treated with caution because the risk of bias assessment showed methodological limitations. Men in one trial were more satisfied with one type of external compression device, which had the lowest urine loss, compared to two others or no treatment. The effect of other conservative interventions such as lifestyle changes remained undetermined as no trials involving these interventions were identified.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The value of the various approaches to conservative management of postprostatectomy incontinence after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. The evidence is conflicting and therefore rigorous, adequately powered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which abide by the principles and recommendations of the CONSORT statement are still needed to obtain a definitive answer. The trials should be robustly designed to answer specific well constructed research questions and include outcomes which are important from the patient's perspective in decision making and are also relevant to the healthcare professionals. Long-term incontinence may be managed by an external penile clamp, but there are safety problems

Research, education and clinical practice: an example of a learning community in the field of Speech and Language Therapy

Description of the contributions of students participating in the Honours Programme of the Utrecht University of Applied Sciences in the development of a test for diagnosing word finding difficultie

Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence

Background: Urinary incontinence is common after both radical prostatectomy and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Conservative management includes pelvic floor muscle training with or without biofeedback, electrical stimulation, extra-corporeal magnetic innervation (ExMI), compression devices (penile clamps), lifestyle changes, or a combination of methods. Objectives: To assess the effects of conservative management for urinary incontinence after prostatectomy. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 24 August 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to Week 48 2009), CINAHL (January 1982 to 20 November 2009), the reference lists of relevant articles, handsearched conference proceedings and contacted investigators to locate studies. Selection criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating conservative interventions for urinary continence in men after prostatectomy. Data collection and analysis: Two or more review authors assessed the methodological quality of trials and abstracted data. We tried to contact several authors of included studies to obtain extra information. Main results: Thirty-seven trials met the inclusion criteria, 33 amongst men after radical prostatectomy, three trials after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and one trial after either operation. The trials included 3399 men, of whom 1937 had an active conservative intervention. There was considerable variation in the interventions, populations and outcome measures. Data were not available for many of the pre-stated outcomes. Men's symptoms improved over time irrespective of management. Adverse effects did not occur or were not reported. There was no evidence from eight trials that pelvic floor muscle training with or without biofeedback was better than control for men who had urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy (e.g. 57% with urinary incontinence versus 62% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) for incontinence after 12 months 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.22) as the confidence intervals were wide, reflecting uncertainty. However, one large multicentre trial of one-to-one therapy showed no difference in any urinary or quality of life outcome measures and had narrower confidence intervals. There was also no evidence of benefit for erectile dysfunction (56% with no erection in the pelvic floor muscle training group versus 55% in the control group after one year, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.20). Individual small trials provided data to suggest that electrical stimulation, external magnetic innervation or combinations of treatments might be beneficial but the evidence was limited. One large trial demonstrated that there was no benefit for incontinence or erectile dysfunction from a one-to-one pelvic floor muscle training based intervention to men who were incontinent after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (e.g. 65% with urinary incontinence versus 62% in the control group, RR after 12 months 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.23).In eight trials of conservative treatment of all men after radical prostatectomy aimed at both treatment and prevention, there was an overall benefit from pelvic floor muscle training versus control management in terms of reduction of UI (e.g. 10% with urinary incontinence after one year versus 32% in the control groups, RR for urinary incontinence 0.32, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.51). However, this finding was not supported by other data from pad tests. The findings should be treated with caution, as most trials were of poor to moderate quality and confidence intervals were wide. Men in one trial were more satisfied with one type of external compression device, which had the lowest urine loss, compared to two others or no treatment. The effect of other conservative interventions such as lifestyle changes remains undetermined as no trials involving these interventions were identified. Authors' conclusions: The value of the various approaches to conservative management of postprostatectomy incontinence after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. It seems unlikely that men benefit from one-to-one pelvic floor muscle training therapy after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Long-term incontinence may be managed by external penile clamp, but there are safety problems