Pollination by flies, bees, and beetles of Nuphar ozarkana and N. advena (Nymphaeaceae)

Nuphar comprises 13 species of aquatic perennials distributed in the temperate Northern Hemisphere. The European species N. lutea and N. pumila in Norway, the Netherlands, and Germany are pollinated by bees and flies, including apparent Nuphar specialists. This contrasts with reports of predominant beetle pollination in American N. advena and N. polysepala. We studied pollination in N. ozarkana in Missouri and N. advena in Texas to assess whether (1) there is evidence of pollinator shifts associated with floral-morphological differences between Old World and New World species as hypothesized by Padgett, Les, and Crow (American Journal of Botany 86: 1316–1324. 1999) and (2) whether beetle pollination characterizes American species of Nuphar. Ninety-seven and 67% of flower visits in the two species were by sweat bees, especially Lasioglossum (Evylaeus) nelumbonis. Syrphid fly species visiting both species were Paragus sp., Chalcosyrphus metallicus, and Toxomerus geminatus. The long-horned leaf beetle Donacia piscatrix was common on leaves and stems of N. ozarkana but rarely visited flowers. Fifteen percent of visits to N. advena flowers were by D. piscatrix and D. texana. The beetles’ role as pollinators was investigated experimentally by placing floating mesh cages that excluded flies and bees over N. advena buds about to open and adding beetles. Beetles visited 40% of the flowers in cages, and flowers that received visits had 69% seed set, likely due to beetle-mediated geitonogamy of 1st-d flowers. Experimentally outcrossed 1st-d flowers had 62% seed set, and open-pollinated flowers 76%; 2nd-d selfed or outcrossed flowers had low seed sets (9 and 12%, respectively). Flowers are strongly protogynous and do not self spontaneously. Flowers shielded from pollinators set no seeds. A comparison of pollinator spectra in the two Old World and three New World Nuphar species studied so far suggests that the relative contribution of flies, bees, and beetles to pollen transfer in any one population depends more on these insects’ relative abundances (and in the case of Donacia, presence) and alternative food sources than on stamen length differences between Old World and New World pond-lilies

Cardiovascular consequences of cortisol excess

Cushing's syndrome is a consequence of primary or, more commonly, secondary oversecretion of cortisol. Cardiovascular disease is the major cause of morbidity and mortality in Cushing's syndrome, and excess risk remains even in effectively treated patients. The cardiovascular consequences of cortisol excess are protean and include, inter alia, elevation of blood pressure, truncal obesity, hyperinsulinemia, hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia. This review analyses the relationship of cortisol excess, both locally and at tissue level, to these cardiovascular risk factors, and to putative mechanisms for hypertension. Previous studies have examined correlations between cortisol, blood pressure, and other parameters in the general population and in Cushing's syndrome. This review also details changes induced by short-term cortisol administration in normotensive healthy men

Core outcome sets and systematic reviews

Systematic reviews seek to bring together research evidence to answer the question for the review. The reviewers usually wish to compare, contrast and, if appropriate, combine the findings of the existing research studies. However, these intentions are often thwarted by inconsistencies in the outcomes that were measured and reported in the individual studies. This, in turn, makes it difficult for readers of the review to use it to make informed decisions and choices about health and social care. One solution is for trials in a particular topic area to measure and report a standardised set of outcomes, which would then be used in the review. Core outcome sets are a means of doing this, providing an agreed standardised collection of outcomes for measuring and reporting for a specific area of health. In this commentary, we argue for greater involvement of systematic reviewers in the development and implementation of core outcome sets. This might help with, for example, the selection of outcomes to include in the Summary of findings tables that provide users of the review with the key quantitative findings. Consideration of core outcome sets when reviewers register their topics with Cochrane Review Groups or in PROSPERO would also help reviewers to plan their reviews. A greater uptake of core outcome sets across research, including systematic reviews, would help towards the ultimate aim of improving health and well-being through improving health and social care

joineR: Joint modelling of repeated measurements and time-to-event data

The joineR package implements methods for analysing data from longitudinal studies in which the response from each subject consists of a time-sequence of repeated measurements and a possibly censored time-toevent outcome. The modelling framework for the repeated measurements is the linear model with random effects and/or correlated error structure. The model for the time-to-event outcome is a Cox proportional hazards model with log-Gaussian frailty. Stochastic dependence is captured by allowing the Gaussian random effects of the linear model to be correlated with the frailty term of the Cox proportional hazards model

The need for core outcome sets in urological cancer research

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Evaluation of interventions for informed consent for randomised controlled trials (ELICIT) : protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey

Acknowledgements This work was supported by personal fellowship award (to KG) from the Medical Research Council’s Strategic Skills Methodology programme. The Health Services Research Unit is supported by a core grant from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. PW is funded by a UK Medical Research Council Hub for Trials Methodology Research Network grant G0800792. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Chief Scientist Office, MRC or the Department of Health.Peer reviewedPublisher PD