Remote sensing of geobotanical relations in Georgia

The application of remote sensing to geological investigations, with special attention to geobotanical factors, was evaluated. The general areas of investigation included: (1) recognition of mineral deposits; (2) geological mapping; (3) delineation of geological structure, including areas of complex tectonics; and (4) limestone areas where ground withdrawal had intensified surface collapse

Study in optimization of microcircuit design Final report

Optimization of microcircuit reliabilit

The BRAIN-Q, a tool for assessing self-reported sport-related concussions for epidemiological studies

Objectives: The BRAIN-Q is a tool aimed at maximising the accuracy, and minimising measurement error, for retrospectively assessing concussions. This paper reports agreement of the BRAIN-Q tool when compared to extant questionnaire questions, and reproducibility when compared with its telephonic version (tBRAIN-Q). Method: The BRAIN-Q entails a 3-stage process: defining concussion, creating a visual timeline with life events, and establishing detailed characteristics for each reported concussion. It was designed to be administered in-person by trained personnel, and was used in the BRAIN Study. Its performance was compared with the MSK Study which previously collected a few questions in a broader self-administered questionnaire; and with the tBRAIN-Q Recall, its telephonic version. Results: 101 participants were included; of these, nine were re-assessed with the tBRAIN-Q. Compared to the BRAIN-Q, the agreement with the MSK-Q for rugby-related concussion was 86.7% (kappa 0.6). Rugby-related concussion with loss of consciousness showed lower agreement (82.0% (kappa 0.6)). The comparison between the BRAIN-Q and the tBRAIN-Q showed a good reproducibility. Conclusions: The BRAIN-Q is a relatively easy tool to administer in face-to-face assessments, it showed an optimal reproducibility, it includes a well-established definition of concussion, and is used to collect detailed information on each concussion allowing for a number of subgroup analyses (e.g. by severity, by age, by context). The BRAIN-Q is easily adaptable to other sporting setting

The effect of FTO variation on increased osteoarthritis risk is mediated through body mass index : a mendelian randomisation study

Objective: Variation in the fat mass and obesity-associated (FTO) gene influences susceptibility to obesity. A variant in the FTO gene has been implicated in genetic risk to osteoarthritis (OA). We examined the role of the FTO polymorphism rs8044769 in risk of knee and hip OA in cases and controls incorporating body mass index (BMI) information. Methods: 5409 knee OA patients, 4355 hip OA patients and up to 5362 healthy controls from 7 independent cohorts from the UK and Australia were genotyped for rs8044769. The association of the FTO variant with OA was investigated in case/control analyses with and without BMI adjustment and in analyses matched for BMI category. A mendelian randomisation approach was employed using the FTO variant as the instrumental variable to evaluate the role of overweight on OA. Results: In the meta-analysis of all overweight (BMI≥25) samples versus normal-weight controls irrespective of OA status the association of rs8044769 with overweight is highly significant (OR[CIs] for allele G=1.14 [01.08 to 1.19], p=7.5×10−7). A significant association with knee OA is present in the analysis without BMI adjustment (OR[CIs]=1.08[1.02 to 1.14], p=0.009) but the signal fully attenuates after BMI adjustment (OR[CIs]=0.99[0.93 to 1.05], p=0.666). We observe no evidence for association in the BMI-matched meta-analyses. Using mendelian randomisation approaches we confirm the causal role of overweight on OA. Conclusions: Our data highlight the contribution of genetic risk to overweight in defining risk to OA but the association is exclusively mediated by the effect on BMI. This is consistent with what is known of the biology of the FTO gene and supports the causative role of high BMI in OA

Processing and Transmission of Information

Contains reports on four research projects.Lincoln Laboratory, Purchase Order DDL B-00306U. S. ArmyU. S. NavyU. S. Air Force under Air Force Contract AF19(604)-520

Impact of a National Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Programme on Patient Outcomes of Primary total Knee Replacement: an Interrupted Time Series Analysis from “The National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man”

Objective We aimed to test whether a national Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Programme in total knee replacement (TKR) had an impact on patient outcomes. Design Natural-experiment (April 2008-December 2016). Interrupted time-series regression assessed impact on trends before-during-after ERAS implementation. Setting Primary operations from the UK National Joint Registry were linked with Hospital Episode Statistics data which contains inpatient episodes undertaken in NHS trusts in England, and PROMs. Participants Patients undergoing primary planned TKR aged ≥18 years. Intervention ERAS implementation (April 2009-March 2011). Outcomes Regression coefficients of monthly means of LOS, bed day costs, change in Oxford knee scores (OKS) 6-months after surgery, complications (at 6 months), and rates of revision surgeries (at 5 years). Results 486,579 primary TKRs were identified. Overall LOS and bed-day costs decreased from 5.8 days to 3.7 and from £7607 to £5276, from April 2008 to December 2016. OKS change improved from 15.1 points in April 2008 to 17.1 points in December 2016. Complications decreased from 4.1 % in April 2008 to 1.7 % March 2016. 5-year revision rates remained stable at 4.8 per 1000 implants years in April 2008 and December 2011. After ERAS, declining trends in LOS and bed costs slowed down; OKS improved, complications remained stable, and revisions slightly increased. Conclusions Different secular trends in outcomes for patients having TKR have been observed over the last decade. Although patient outcomes are better than a decade ago ERAS did not improve them at national level

What influences people's responses to public health messages for managing risks and preventing infectious diseases? A rapid systematic review of the evidence and recommendations

BACKGROUND: Individual behaviour changes, such as hand hygiene and physical distancing, are required on a population scale to reduce transmission of infectious diseases such as COVID-19. However, little is known about effective methods of communicating risk reducing information, and how populations might respond. OBJECTIVE: To synthesise evidence relating to what (1) characterises effective public health messages for managing risk and preventing infectious disease and (2) influences people's responses to messages. DESIGN: A rapid systematic review was conducted. Protocol is published on Prospero CRD42020188704. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched: Ovid Medline, Ovid PsycINFO and Healthevidence.org, and grey literature (PsyarXiv, OSF Preprints) up to May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: All study designs that (1) evaluated public health messaging interventions targeted at adults and (2) concerned a communicable disease spread via primary route of transmission of respiratory and/or touch were included. Outcomes included preventative behaviours, perceptions/awareness and intentions. Non-English language papers were excluded. SYNTHESIS: Due to high heterogeneity studies were synthesised narratively focusing on determinants of intentions in the absence of measured adherence/preventative behaviours. Themes were developed independently by two researchers and discussed within team to reach consensus. Recommendations were translated from narrative synthesis to provide evidence-based methods in providing effective messaging. RESULTS: Sixty-eight eligible papers were identified. Characteristics of effective messaging include delivery by credible sources, community engagement, increasing awareness/knowledge, mapping to stage of epidemic/pandemic. To influence intent effectively, public health messages need to be acceptable, increase understanding/perceptions of health threat and perceived susceptibility. DISCUSSION: There are four key recommendations: (1) engage communities in development of messaging, (2) address uncertainty immediately and with transparency, (3) focus on unifying messages from sources and (4) frame messages aimed at increasing understanding, social responsibility and personal control. Embedding principles of behavioural science into public health messaging is an important step towards more effective health-risk communication during epidemics/pandemics

Total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis : the TOPKAT RCT

Article history The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 08/14/08. The contractual start date was in January 2010. The draft report began editorial review in February 2019 and was accepted for publication in October 2019. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report. Acknowledgements TOPKAT study group Chief investigator David Beard. Trial co-investigators Nigel Arden (Oxford), Helen Campbell (Oxford), Marion Campbell (Aberdeen), Andrew Carr (Oxford), Jonathan Cook (Aberdeen then Oxford), Helen Doll (Oxford), Ray Fitzpatrick (Oxford), David Murray (Oxford) and Andrew Price (Oxford). Trial management Mayret Castillo (until 2011), Cushla Cooper, Loretta Davies, Anne Duncan (until 2017), Gordon Fernie, Sophie Halpin (until 2015) and Alison McDonald. Trial administration Katie Chegwin, Jiyang Li (until 2018), Elena Rabaiotti (until 2013), Sandra Regan (until 2012) and Victoria Stalker (until 2014). Data management Diana Collins (until 2013), Janice Cruden, Akiko Greshon, Kay Holland and Beverley Smith (until 2017). Database/programming management Gladys McPherson. Trial statisticians Charles Boachie (until 2013), Jemma Hudson and Graeme MacLennan. Health economists Helen Campbell (until 2015), Francesco Fusco (until 2018), Seamus Kent and Jose Leal. We would also like to thank Hannah Wilson (DPhil student, University of Oxford) for her help with the update to the literature search. Research teams We are grateful to the participants and research teams at collaborating hospital sites: Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Royal Gwent Hospital Ruth Jenkins, Mark Lewis [principal investigator (PI)] and Witek Mintowt-Czyz. Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Musgrove Park Hospital, Belfast David Beverland (PI), Leeann Bryce, Julie Catney, Ian Dobie, Emer Doran and Seamus O’Brien. Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Fazal Ali, Heather Cripps, Amanda Whileman, Phil Williams (PI) and Julie Toms. County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust Ellen Brown, Gillian Horner, Andrew Jennings (PI) and Glynis Rose. East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, Royal Blackburn Hospital Frances Bamford, Wendy Goddard, Hans Marynissen (PI), Haleh Peel and Lyndsey Richards. Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Swindon Amanda Bell, Sunny Deo, Sarah Grayland, David Hollinghurst, Suzannah Pegler, Venkat Satish (PI) and Claire Woodruffe. Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust, Harrogate Nick London (PI), David Duffy, Caroline Bennett and James Featherstone. Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust Joss Cook, Kim Dearnley, Nagarajan Muthukumar (PI), Laura Onuoha and Sarah Wilson. Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Medway Sandhu Banher, Eunice Emeakaroha, Jamie Horohan, Sunil Jain (PI) and Susan Thompson. Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust Sarah Buckley, Aaron Ng (PI), Ajit Shetty and Karen Simeson. Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Julian Flynn, Meryl Newsom, Cheryl Padilla-Harris and Oliver Pearce (PI). NHS Grampian, Woodend Hospital, Aberdeen James Bidwell (PI), Alison Innes, Winifred Culley and Bill Ledingham and Janis Stephen. North Bristol NHS Trust Rachel Bray, Hywel Davies, Debbie Delgado, Jonathan Eldridge, Leigh Morrison, James Murray (PI), Andrew Porteous and James Robinson. North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust, Carlisle Matt Dawson (PI), Raj Dharmarajan, David Elson, Will Hage, Nicci Kelsall and Mike Orr. North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, Stockton-On-Tees Jackie Grosvenor, SS Maheswaran (PI), Claire McCue, Hemanth Venkatesh, Michelle Wild and Deborah Wilson. Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre Chris Dodd, William Jackson (PI), Pam Lovegrove, David Murray, Jennifer Piper and Andrew Price. Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath Neil Bradbury, Lucy Clark, Stefanie Duncan, Genevieve Simpson and Allister Trezies (PI). Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Kings Mill Hospital, Sutton in Ashfield Vikram Desai (PI), Cheryl Heeley, Kramer Guy and Rosalyn Jackson. South Devon Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Torbay Alan Hall, Gordon Higgins (PI), Michael Hockings, David Isaac and Pauline Mercer. Stockport NHS Foundation Trust, Stockport Lindsey Barber, Helen Cochrane, Janette Curtis, Julie Grindey, David Johnson (PI), and Phil Turner. The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Trust David Houlihan-Burne (PI), Briony Hill, Ron Langstaff and Mariam Nasseri. The Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust, Ipswich Mark Bowditch, Chris Martin, Steven Pryke, Bally Purewal, Chris Servant (PI), Sheeba Suresh and Claire Tricker. University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester Robert Ashford, Manjit Attwal, Jeanette Bunga, Urjit Chatterji, Susan Cockburn, Colin Esler (PI), Steven Godsiff, Tim Green, Christina Haines and Subash Tandon. University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke on Trent Racquel Carpio, Sarah Griffiths, Natalie Grocott and Ian dos Remedios (PI). University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust David Barrett, Phil Chapman-Sheath, Caroline Grabau, Jane Moghul, William Tice (PI) and Catherine Trevithick. United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Boston Rajiv Deshmukh, Mandy Howes, Kimberley Netherton, Dipak Raj (PI) and Nikki Travis. United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Lincoln Mohammad Maqsood, Rebecca Norton, Farzana Rashid, Alison Raynor, Mark Rowsell and Karen Warner. We would like to thank the external members of the TSC and DMC for their advice and support for the project. Trial Steering Committee Donna Dodwell as our patient representative, Simon Donell (chairperson) (University of East Anglia), Shawn Tavares (Royal Berkshire Hospital) and Jonathan Waite (South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust). Data Monitoring Committee Karen Barker (Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust), Gordon Murray (chairperson) (University of Edinburgh) and Hamish Simpson (University of Edinburgh). Independent review and interpretation of results Professor David Torgerson (University of York). Professor Chris Maher (University of Sydney). Mr Peter Brownson (The Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust). Professor Simon Donell (University of East Anglia, Norwich). Mr Mark Mullins (Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board). Professor Jane Blazeby (Bristol University).Peer reviewedPublisher PD