7 research outputs found

    The impact of phosphodiesterase inhibition on neurobehavioral outcomes in preclinical models of traumatic and non-traumatic spinal cord injury: a systematic review

    Get PDF
    Study designSystematic review.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitors on neurobehavioral outcomes in preclinical models of traumatic and non-traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI).MethodsA systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019150639). Searches were performed in MEDLINE and Embase. Studies were included if they evaluated the impact of PDE inhibitors on neurobehavioral outcomes in preclinical models of traumatic or non-traumatic SCI. Data were extracted from relevant studies, including sample characteristics, injury model, and neurobehavioral assessment and outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the SYRCLE checklist.ResultsThe search yielded a total of 1,679 studies, of which 22 met inclusion criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 11 to 144 animals. PDE inhibitors used include rolipram (n = 16), cilostazol (n = 4), roflumilast (n = 1), and PDE4-I (n = 1). The injury models used were traumatic SCI (n = 18), spinal cord ischemia (n = 3), and degenerative cervical myelopathy (n = 1). The most commonly assessed outcome measures were Basso, Beattie, Bresnahan (BBB) locomotor score (n = 13), and grid walking (n = 7). Of the 22 papers that met the final inclusion criteria, 12 showed a significant improvement in neurobehavioral outcomes following the use of PDE inhibitors, four papers had mixed findings and six found PDE inhibitors to be ineffective in improving neurobehavioral recovery following an SCI. Notably, these findings were broadly consistent across different PDE inhibitors and spinal cord injury models.ConclusionIn preclinical models of traumatic and non-traumatic SCI, the administration of PDE inhibitors appeared to be associated with statistically significant improvements in neurobehavioral outcomes in a majority of included studies. However, the evidence was inconsistent with a high risk of bias. This review provides a foundation to aid the interpretation of subsequent clinical trials of PDE inhibitors in spinal cord injury.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=150639, identifier: CRD42019150639

    Proceedings of the Virtual 3rd UK Implementation Science Research Conference : Virtual conference. 16 and 17 July 2020.

    Get PDF

    Measurement of Head Circumference Using a Smartphone: Feasibility Cohort Study

    No full text
    BackgroundAccurate head circumference (HC) measurement is essential when assessing neonates and infants. Tape measure HC measurements are prone to errors, particularly when performed by parents/guardians, due to individual differences in head shape, hair style and texture, subject cooperation, and examiner techniques, including tape measure placement and tautness. There is, therefore, the need for a more reliable method. ObjectiveThe primary objective of this study was to evaluate the validity, reliability, and consistency of HC app measurement compared to the current standard of practice, serving as a proof-of-concept for use by health care professionals. MethodsWe recruited infants attending the neurosurgery clinic, and parents/guardians were approached and consented to participate in the study. Along with the standard head circumference measurement, measurements were taken with the head circumference app (HC app) developed in-house, and we also collected baseline medical history and characteristics. For the statistical analysis, we used RStudio (version 4.1.1). In summary, we analyzed covariance and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to compare the measurement's within-rater and interrater reliability. The F test was used to analyze the variance between measurements and the Bland-Altman agreement, t test, and correlation coefficients were used to compare the tape measurement to the measures taken by the HC app. We also used nonvalidated questionnaires to explore parental or guardians’ experiences, assess their views on app utility, and collect feedback. ResultsThe total number of recruited patients was 37. Comparison between the app measurements and the measurements with a tape measure showed poor reliability (ICC=0.177) and wide within-app variations (ICC=0.341). The agreement between the measurements done by parents/guardians and the tape measurements done by the researcher was good (ICC=0.901). Parental/guardian feedback was overall very positive, with most of the parents/guardians reporting that the app was easy to use (n=31, 84%) and that they are happy to use the app in an unsupervised setting, provided that they are assured of the measurement quality. ConclusionsWe developed this project as a proof-of-concept study, and as such, the app has shown great potential to be used both in a clinical setting and by parents/guardians in their own homes
    corecore