Spur pruning leads to distinctly different phenolic profiles of base sparkling wines than cane pruning

Winter pruning is the principal method for regulating yield in viticulture. The aim of this work was to investigate the effectiveness of cane and spur pruning on yield, and on grape and wine composition. Cane and spur pruning were investigated in Vitis vinifera L. 'Pinot noir' and 'Chardonnay' vertically-shoot-positioned vines over three seasons. Effects on vine carbohydrates, yield components, leaf area, grape and base wine composition were determined. The canopies of spur pruned vines established more rapidly than cane pruned vines in the 2009/10 season, for both 'Pinot noir' and 'Chardonnay'. The canopies were denser under spur pruning than cane pruning. Pruning treatment had no effect on total yield for either cultivar in any of the three seasons. Total soluble solids (TSS) and titratable acidity were unaffected by pruning treatment, except in 2012 where TSS and pH were higher for spur pruned 'Chardonnay' vines. Apart from spur pruned 'Pinot noir' vine wood being higher in starch in the winter of 2011, overwintering starch and soluble sugar concentrations were not different between pruning treatments for 'Pinot noir' and 'Chardonnay'. Although not different in yield or basic fruit composition, fruit from spur pruned vines resulted in distinctly different phenolic profiles of base wines, with cane pruning appearing to negatively impact on the low molecular weight phenolics in the wine. The results presented here provide confidence that quality is not lessened, in fact could be improved, by shifting from the industry norm of cane to spur pruning for sparkling wine production in cool climates

Towards accelerated autolysis? Dynamics of phenolics, proteins, amino acids and lipids in response to novel treatments and during ageing of sparkling wine

Premium sparkling wine produced by the traditional method (analogous to the French méthode champenoise) is characterised by the development of aged wine character as a result of a second fermentation in the bottle with lees contact and lengthy ageing. Treatments (microwave, ultrasound, or β-glucanase enzymes) were applied to disrupt the cell wall of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and added to the tirage liquor for the second fermentation of Chardonnay-Pinot Noir base wine cuvée and compared to a control, to assess effects on the release of phenolics, proteins, amino acids, and lipids at 6, 12 and 18 months post-tirage. General responses to wine ageing included a 60% increase in the total phenolic content of older sparkling wines relative to younger wines and an increase in protein concentration from 6 to 12 months bottle age. Microwave and β-glucanase enzyme treatments of yeast during tirage preparation were associated with a 10% increase in total free amino acid concentration and a 10% increase in proline concentration at 18 months bottle age, compared to control and ultrasound treatment. Furthermore, microwave treatment was associated with elevated asparagine content in wine at 18 months bottle age, relative to the control and the other wines. The β-glucanase enzyme and ultrasound treatments were associated with significant accumulation of total lipids, which were driven by 2-fold increases in the phospholipid and monoacylglycerol components in wine at 18 months bottle age and, furthermore, the microwave treatment was associated with elevated triacylglycerol at 18 months bottle age. This study demonstrates that the use of yeast treatments at the tirage stage of sparkling wine production presents an opportunity to manipulate wine composition

Support and Assessment for Fall Emergency Referrals (SAFER 1) trial protocol. Computerised on-scene decision support for emergency ambulance staff to assess and plan care for older people who have fallen: evaluation of costs and benefits using a pragmatic cluster randomised trial

Background: Many emergency ambulance calls are for older people who have fallen. As half of them are left at home, a community-based response may often be more appropriate than hospital attendance. The SAFER 1 trial will assess the costs and benefits of a new healthcare technology - hand-held computers with computerised clinical decision support (CCDS) software - to help paramedics decide who needs hospital attendance, and who can be safely left at home with referral to community falls services. Methods/Design: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial with a qualitative component. We shall allocate 72 paramedics ('clusters') at random between receiving the intervention and a control group delivering care as usual, of whom we expect 60 to complete the trial. Patients are eligible if they are aged 65 or older, live in the study area but not in residential care, and are attended by a study paramedic following an emergency call for a fall. Seven to 10 days after the index fall we shall offer patients the opportunity to opt out of further follow up. Continuing participants will receive questionnaires after one and 6 months, and we shall monitor their routine clinical data for 6 months. We shall interview 20 of these patients in depth. We shall conduct focus groups or semi-structured interviews with paramedics and other stakeholders. The primary outcome is the interval to the first subsequent reported fall (or death). We shall analyse this and other measures of outcome, process and cost by 'intention to treat'. We shall analyse qualitative data thematically. Discussion: Since the SAFER 1 trial received funding in August 2006, implementation has come to terms with ambulance service reorganisation and a new national electronic patient record in England. In response to these hurdles the research team has adapted the research design, including aspects of the intervention, to meet the needs of the ambulance services. In conclusion this complex emergency care trial will provide rigorous evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of CCDS for paramedics in the care of older people who have fallen

PRESENT 2020: Text Expanding on the Checklist for Proper Reporting of Evidence in Sport and Exercise Nutrition Trials.

Some readers may not have access to the full paper, so a properly formatted and well-written abstract is imperative. Authors should give priority to information about the current study rather than using the abstract for an extensive background or rationale. 2a Methods: Key information regarding the study design, methods, and population should be summarized to enable broad understanding of the study from the abstract. 2b Results: Readers are interested in extracting key data that reflect the main findings of the study. The abstract should present data (e.g., the absolute magnitude of values and the size/precision of effects—specifying which measures of central tendency and variability are stated) rather than simply stating the presence, absence, or direction of effects. The presentation of p values or similar inferential statistics is no substitute for reporting actual data (Maughan, 2004). 2c Conclusion: Priority should be given to the reporting of results as per the previous section, with only a brief concluding statement thereafter. A concise conclusion based on what was actually measured in the study is preferred to speculative interpretations, with cautious use of language to avoid hyperbole or improper inference of causality (Brown et al., 2013). It is not appropriate or necessary to identify further research priorities here