Interventions for the symptoms and signs resulting from jellyfish stings.

BACKGROUND: Jellyfish envenomation is common in many coastal regions and varies in severity depending upon the species. Stings cause a variety of symptoms and signs including pain, dermatological reactions, and, in some species, Irukandji syndrome (which may include abdominal/back/chest pain, tachycardia, hypertension, cardiac phenomena, and, rarely, death). Many treatments have been suggested for these symptoms, but their effectiveness is unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms associated with the use of any intervention, in both adults and children, for the treatment of jellyfish stings, as assessed by randomised and quasi-randomised trials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science up to 27 October 2022. We searched clinical trials registers and the grey literature, and conducted forward-citation searching of relevant articles.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any intervention given to treat stings from any species of jellyfish stings. Interventions were compared to another active intervention, placebo, or no treatment. If co-interventions were used, we included the study only if the co-intervention was used in each group.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.  MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies (six RCTs and three quasi-RCTs) involving a total of 574 participants. We found one ongoing study. Participants were either stung accidentally, or were healthy volunteers exposed to stings in a laboratory setting. Type of jellyfish could not be confirmed in beach settings and was determined by investigators using participant and local information. We categorised interventions into comparison groups: hot versus cold applications; topical applications. A third comparison of parenteral administration included no relevant outcome data: a single study (39 participants) evaluated intravenous magnesium sulfate after stings from jellyfish that cause Irukandji syndrome (Carukia). No studies assessed a fourth comparison group of pressure immobilisation bandages.  We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious and very serious imprecision, and serious inconsistency in some results.  Application of heat versus application of cold Four studies involved accidental stings treated on the beach or in hospital. Jellyfish were described as bluebottles (Physalia; location: Australia), and box jellyfish that do not cause Irukandji syndrome (Hawaiian box jellyfish (Carybdea alata) and major box jellyfish (Chironex fleckeri, location: Australia)). Treatments were applied with hot packs or hot water (showers, baths, buckets, or hoses), or ice packs or cold packs.  The evidence for all outcomes was of very low certainty, thus we are unsure whether heat compared to cold leads to at least a clinically significant reduction in pain within six hours of stings from Physalia (risk ratio (RR) 2.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 3.56; 2 studies, 142 participants) or Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 4.94; 2 studies, 71 participants). We are unsure whether there is a difference in adverse events due to treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.19; 2 studies, 142 participants); these were minor adverse events reported for Physalia stings. We are also unsure whether either treatment leads to a clinically significant reduction in pain in the first hour (Physalia: RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.15; 1 study, 88 participants; Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.89; 1 study, 42 participants) or cessation of pain at the end of treatment (Physalia: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.27; 1 study, 54 participants; Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri: RR 3.54, 95% CI 0.82 to 15.31; 1 study, 29 participants). Evidence for retreatment with the same intervention was only available for Physalia, with similar uncertain findings (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.90; 1 study, 96 participants), as was the case for retreatment with the alternative hot or cold application after Physalia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.82; 1 study, 54 participants) and Chironex fleckeri stings (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.02 to 11.17; 1 study, 42 participants). Evidence for dermatological signs (itchiness or rash) was available only at 24 hours for Physalia stings (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.65; 2 studies, 98 participants).  Topical applications One study (62 participants) included accidental stings from Hawaiian box jellyfish (Carybdea alata) treated on the beach with fresh water, seawater, Sting Aid (a commercial product), or Adolph's (papain) meat tenderiser. In another study, healthy volunteers (97 participants) were stung with an Indonesian sea nettle (Chrysaora chinensis from Malaysia) in a laboratory setting and treated with isopropyl alcohol, ammonia, heated water, acetic acid, or sodium bicarbonate. Two other eligible studies (Carybdea alata and Physalia stings) did not measure the outcomes of this review.  The evidence for all outcomes was of very low certainty, thus we could not be certain whether or not topical applications provided at least a clinically significant reduction in pain (1 study, 62 participants with Carybdea alata stings, reported only as cessation of pain). For adverse events due to treatment, one study (Chrysaora chinensis stings) withdrew ammonia as a treatment following a first-degree burn in one participant. No studies evaluated clinically significant reduction in pain, retreatment with the same or the alternative treatment, or dermatological signs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Few studies contributed data to this review, and those that did contribute varied in types of treatment, settings, and range of jellyfish species. We are unsure of the effectiveness of any of the treatments evaluated in this review given the very low certainty of all the evidence. This updated review includes two new studies (with 139 additional participants). The findings are consistent with the previous review.

Timing of submissions to The Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health: Associations with the COVID-19 pandemic and editorial decisions.

AIM: To determine if the timing of manuscript submissions to The Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health (JPCH) changed following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and to determine if the timing of manuscript submissions influenced editorial decisions. METHODS: A retrospective observational study of submissions to JPCH from 1 January 2015 to 1 August 2022 was performed. Regression models were used to explore the change over time. Editorial decisions were examined using a multinomial regression model with the three-category ordinal outcome of reject, revise and accept. All statistical models were fitted using a Bayesian approach and show 95% credible intervals (CI). RESULTS: The analyses included 11 499 manuscript submissions between 2015 and 2022. The mean number of manuscript submissions increased by 17 papers per month (CI 15-19), with a larger 4-month long increase after the COVID-19 pandemic was declared of 86 submissions per month (CI 67-103). There was no clear effect of the pandemic on weekend submissions, mean difference in probability 0.003 (CI -0.021 to 0.026). Throughout the study period, the peak submission time was later in the day and was shifted +37 min later post-March 2020 (CI +22 to +52 min). Throughout the study period, submissions out-of-hours and on weekends were less likely to get an editorial decision of 'accept' or 'revise': odds ratio weekend versus weekday 0.87 (CI 0.78-0.97). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic had a limited effect on the timing of manuscript submissions to JPCH. However, the timing of manuscript submission impacted the likelihood of a more positive editorial decision. While the time of manuscript submission is only one part of the research process, it is postulated that it may be associated with research quality.

A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures in paediatric endocrinology.

CONTEXT: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are useful tools in paediatric endocrinology to gauge health status in children, especially since they are often unable to clearly communicate it themselves. We aimed to systematically search and appraise all available PROMs relevant to paediatric endocrinology and provide a curated resource for health professionals to utilise. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We identified PROMs in paediatric endocrinology by systematically searching the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature on May 20, 2022. Additional studies were located through hand searching and content area expert contributions. We assessed the quality of each PROM using the COSMIN risk of bias checklist. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 5003 papers in the initial search. After applying exclusion criteria we included seven PROMs in the review. Six PROMs were specific to Type I Diabetes and one to Hypothyroidism. We gave all studies an overall COSMIN score of 'inadequate' due to poorly detailed PROM development. CONCLUSION: The scope and quality of PROMs in paediatric endocrinology is limited. Further research and development of PROM tools are required in paediatric endocrinology to allow for improved patient care.

Variations of a group coaching intervention to support early-career biomedical researchers in Grant proposal development: a pragmatic, four-arm, group-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Funded grant proposals provide biomedical researchers with the resources needed to build their research programs, support trainees, and advance public health. Studies using National Institutes of Health (NIH) data have found that investigators from underrepresented groups in the biomedical workforce are awarded NIH research grants at disproportionately lower rates. Grant writing training initiatives are available, but there is a dearth of rigorous research to determine the effectiveness of such interventions and to discern their essential features. METHODS: This 2 × 2, unblinded, group-randomized study compares the effectiveness of variations of an NIH-focused, grant writing, group coaching intervention for biomedical postdoctoral fellows and early-career faculty. The key study outcomes are proposal submission rates and funding rates. Participants, drawn from across the United States, are enrolled as dyads with a self-selected scientific advisor in their content area, then placed into coaching groups led by senior NIH-funded investigators who are trained in the intervention's coaching practices. Target enrollment is 72 coaching groups of 4-5 dyads each. Groups are randomized to one of four intervention arms that differ on two factors: [1] duration of coaching support (regular dose = 5 months of group coaching, versus extended dose = regular dose plus an additional 18 months of one-on-one coaching); and [2] mode of engaging scientific advisors with the regular dose group coaching process (unstructured versus structured engagement). Intervention variations were informed by programs previously offered by the NIH National Research Mentoring Network. Participant data are collected via written surveys (baseline and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after start of the regular dose) and semi-structured interviews (end of regular dose and 24 months). Quantitative analyses will be intention-to-treat, using a 2-sided test of equality of the effects of each factor. An inductive, constant comparison analysis of interview transcripts will be used to identify contextual factors -- associated with individual participants, their engagement with the coaching intervention, and their institutional setting - that influence intervention effectiveness. DISCUSSION: Results of this study will provide an empirical basis for a readily translatable coaching approach to supporting the essential grant writing activities of faculty, fellows, and other research trainees, including those from underrepresented groups.

How to Include Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly important measures of patient experience, which can increase research robustness, maximise economic value and improve patient outcomes. This review outlines the benefits, challenges and practicalities of incorporating patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials. RECENT FINDINGS: Patient-reported outcome measures are often the best way of measuring patient symptoms and quality of life. Patient-reported outcome measures can help reduce observer bias, engage patients in the research process, and inform health service resource planning. A range of tools exist to help facilitate clinicians and researchers in selecting and utilising patient reported outcome measures. Key issues to consider when selecting an appropriate tool include the development, format and psychometric properties of the patient-reported outcome measures. The use of patient-reported outcome measures allow us to better understand the patient experience and their values. A range of tools exist to help facilitate the use of patient-reported outcome measures. This article outlines how we can incorporate patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials.

Fake news and fake research: Why meta-research matters more than ever.

Research is in a crisis of credibility, and this is to the peril of all paediatricians. Billions of dollars are being wasted each year because research is not planned, badly conducted or poorly reported, and this is on a background of rapidly reducing research budgets. How can paediatricians, families and patients make informed treatment choices if the evidence base is absent or not trustworthy? This article discusses why meta-research now matters more than ever, how it can help solve this crisis of credibility and how this should lead to more efficient and effective clinical care. The field of meta-research or research-on-research is the ultimate big picture approach to identifying and solving issues of bias, error, misconduct and waste in research. Meta-researchers value authenticity over aesthetics and quality over quantity. The utility of meta-research does not rely on accusations or critical assessments of individual research, but through highlighting where and how the scientific method and research standards across all fields can be improved. Meta-researchers study, analyse and critique the research pathway, focusing on elements such as methods (how to conduct), evaluation (how to test), reporting (how to communicate), reproducibility (how to verify) and incentives (how to reward). In the current climate it is now more critical than ever that we make use of meta-research and prioritise high-quality high-impact research, ultimately leading to improved patient outcomes.

Safe haven or risky hazard? Bitcoin during the Covid-19 bear market.

The Covid-19 bear market presents the first acute market losses since active trading of Bitcoin began. This market downturn provides a timely test of the frequently expounded safe haven properties of Bitcoin. In this paper, we show that Bitcoin does not act as a safe haven, instead decreasing in price in lockstep with the S&P 500 as the crisis develops. When held alongside the S&P 500, even a small allocation to Bitcoin substantially increases portfolio downside risk. Our empirical findings cast doubt on the ability of Bitcoin to provide shelter from turbulence in traditional markets.

A Summary Report from the Research Partnership on Women in Science Careers.

BACKGROUND: In response to the landmark report "Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering," the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health issued a request for applications that funded 14 R01 grants to investigate causal factors to career success for women in STEM. Following completion of the 4-year grants, the grant PIs formed a grassroots collaborative, the Research Partnership on Women in Science Careers. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the work of the Research Partnership, which resulted in over 100 publications. METHODS: We developed six themes to organize the publications, with a "Best Practices" for each theme at the end of each section: Barriers to Career Advancement; Mentoring, Coaching, and Sponsorship; Career Flexibility and Work-Life Balance; Pathways to Leadership; Compensation Equity; and Advocating for Change and Stakeholder Engagement. RESULTS: Women still contend with sexual harassment, stereotype threat, a disproportionate burden of family responsibilities, a lack of parity in compensation and resource allocation, and implicit bias. Strategies to address these barriers using the Bronfenbrenner ecological model at the individual, interpersonal, institutional, academic community, and policy levels include effective mentoring and coaching, having a strong publication record, addressing prescriptive gender norms, positive counter-stereotype imaging, career development training, networking, and external career programs such as the AAMC Early and Mid-Career Programs and Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine (ELAM). CONCLUSIONS: Cultural transformation is needed to address the barriers to career advancement for women. Implementing the best practices noted of the work of the Research Partnership can help to achieve this goal.

Probiotics for people with hepatic encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy is a disorder of brain function as a result of liver failure or portosystemic shunt or both. Both hepatic encephalopathy (clinically overt) and minimal hepatic encephalopathy (not clinically overt) significantly impair patient's quality of life and daily functioning, and represent a significant burden on healthcare resources. Probiotics are live micro-organisms, which when administered in adequate amounts, may confer a health benefit on the host. OBJECTIVES: To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of probiotics in any dosage, compared with placebo or no intervention, or with any other treatment for people with any grade of acute or chronic hepatic encephalopathy. This review did not consider the primary prophylaxis of hepatic encephalopathy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, conference proceedings, reference lists of included trials, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform until June 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials that compared probiotics in any dosage with placebo or no intervention, or with any other treatment in people with hepatic encephalopathy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We conducted random-effects model meta-analysis due to obvious heterogeneity of participants and interventions. We defined a P value of 0.05 or less as significant. We expressed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 trials with 1420 participants, of these, 14 were new trials. Fourteen trials compared a probiotic with placebo or no treatment, and seven trials compared a probiotic with lactulose. The trials used a variety of probiotics; the most commonly used group of probiotic was VSL#3, a proprietary name for a group of eight probiotics. Duration of administration ranged from 10 days to 180 days. Eight trials declared their funding source, of which six were independently funded and two were industry funded. The remaining 13 trials did not disclose their funding source. We classified 19 of the 21 trials at high risk of bias.We found no effect on all-cause mortality when probiotics were compared with placebo or no treatment (7 trials; 404 participants; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.44; low-quality evidence). No-recovery (as measured by incomplete resolution of symptoms) was lower for participants treated with probiotic (10 trials; 574 participants; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.79; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events were lower for participants treated with probiotic than with no intervention when considering the development of overt hepatic encephalopathy (10 trials; 585 participants; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.51; low-quality evidence), but effects on hospitalisation and change of/or withdrawal from treatment were uncertain (hospitalisation: 3 trials, 163 participants; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.00; very low-quality evidence; change of/or withdrawal from treatment: 9 trials, 551 participants; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.07; very low-quality evidence). Probiotics may slightly improve quality of life compared with no intervention (3 trials; 115 participants; results not meta-analysed; low-quality evidence). Plasma ammonia concentration was lower for participants treated with probiotic (10 trials; 705 participants; MD -8.29 µmol/L, 95% CI -13.17 to -3.41; low-quality evidence). There were no reports of septicaemia attributable to probiotic in any trial.When probiotics were compared with lactulose, the effects on all-cause mortality were uncertain (2 trials; 200 participants; RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 102.00; very low-quality evidence); lack of recovery (7 trials; 430 participants; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.21; very low-quality evidence); adverse events considering the development of overt hepatic encephalopathy (6 trials; 420 participants; RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.17; very low-quality evidence); hospitalisation (1 trial; 80 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.07; very low-quality evidence); intolerance leading to discontinuation (3 trials; 220 participants; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.43; very low-quality evidence); change of/or withdrawal from treatment (7 trials; 490 participants; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.82; very low-quality evidence); quality of life (results not meta-analysed; 1 trial; 69 participants); and plasma ammonia concentration overall (6 trials; 325 participants; MD -2.93 µmol/L, 95% CI -9.36 to 3.50; very low-quality evidence). There were no reports of septicaemia attributable to probiotic in any trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The majority of included trials suffered from a high risk of systematic error ('bias') and a high risk of random error ('play of chance'). Accordingly, we consider the evidence to be of low quality. Compared with placebo or no intervention, probiotics probably improve recovery and may lead to improvements in the development of overt hepatic encephalopathy, quality of life, and plasma ammonia concentrations, but probiotics may lead to little or no difference in mortality. Whether probiotics are better than lactulose for hepatic encephalopathy is uncertain because the quality of the available evidence is very low. High-quality randomised clinical trials with standardised outcome collection and data reporting are needed to further clarify the true efficacy of probiotics.

Management for intussusception in children.

BACKGROUND: Intussusception is a common abdominal emergency in children with significant morbidity. Prompt diagnosis and management reduces associated risks and the need for surgical intervention. Despite widespread agreement on the use of contrast enema as opposed to surgery for initial management in most cases, debate persists on the appropriate contrast medium, imaging modality, pharmacological adjuvant, and protocol for delayed repeat enema, and on the best approach for surgical management for intussusception in children. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and effectiveness of non-surgical and surgical approaches in the management of intussusception in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to September 2016); Ovid Embase (1974 to September 2016); Science Citation Index Expanded (via Web of Science) (1900 to September 2016); and BIOSIS Previews (1969 to September 2016).We examined the reference lists of all eligible trials to identify additional studies. To locate unpublished studies, we contacted content experts, searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov (September 2016), and explored proceedings from meetings of the British Association of Paedatric Surgeons (BAPS), the American Soceity of Pediatric Surgery, and the World Congress of Pediatric Surgery. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials comparing contrast media, imaging modalities, pharmacological adjuvants, protocols for delayed repeat enema, and/or surgical approaches for the management of intussusception in children. We applied no language, publication date, or publication status restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted study selection and data extraction and assessed risk of bias using a standardised form. We resolved disagreements by consensus with a third review author when necessary. We reported dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We analysed data on an intention-to-treat basis and evaluated the overall quality of evidence supporting the outcomes by using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 822 participants. Two trials compared liquid enema reduction plus glucagon versus liquid enema alone. One trial compared liquid enema plus dexamethasone versus liquid enema alone. Another trial compared air enema plus dexamethasone versus air enema alone, and two trials compared use of liquid enema versus air enema. We identified three ongoing trials.We judged all included trials to be at risk of bias owing to omissions in reported methods. We judged five of six trials as having high risk of bias in at least one domain. Therefore, the quality of the evidence (GRADE) for outcomes was low. Interventions and data presentation varied greatly across trials; therefore meta-analysis was not possible for most review outcomes. Enema plus glucagon versus enema alone It is uncertain whether use of glucagon improves the rate of successful reduction of intussusception when compared with enema alone (reported in two trials, 218 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.26;low quality of evidence). No trials in this comparison reported on the number of children with bowel perforation(s) nor on the number of children with recurrent intussusception. Enema plus dexamethasone versus enema alone Use of the adjunct, dexamethasone, may be beneficial in reducing intussusception recurrence with liquid or air enema (two trials, 299 participants; RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.60; low quality of evidence). This equates to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 13 (95% CI 8 to 37). It is uncertain whether use of the adjunct, dexamethasone, improves the rate of successful reduction of intussusception when compared with enema alone (reported in two trials, 356 participants; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.10;low quality of evidence). Air enema versus liquid enema Air enema may be more successful than liquid enema for reducing intussusception (two trials, 199 participants; RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.49; low quality of evidence). This equates to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 6 (95% CI 4 to 19). No trials in this comparison reported on the number of children with bowel perforation(s) or on the number of children with recurrent intussusception nor any intraoperative complications, such as bowel perforation, or other adverse effects. Only one trial reported postoperative complications, but owing to the method of reporting used, a quantitative analysis was not possible. We identified no studies that exclusively evaluated surgical interventions for management of intussusception. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identified a small number of trials that assessed a variety of interventions. All included trials provided evidence of low quality and were subject to serious concerns about imprecision, high risk of bias, or both. Air enema may be superior to liquid enema for successfully reducing intussusception in children; however, this finding is based on a few studies including small numbers of participants. Dexamethasone as an adjuvant may be more effective in reducing intussusception recurrence rates following air enema or liquid enema, but these results are also based on a few studies of small numbers of participants. This review highlights several points that need to be addressed in future studies, including reducing the risk of bias and including relevant outcomes. Specifically, surgical trials are lacking, and future research is needed to address this evidence gap.

"Biomedical Workforce Diversity: The Context for Mentoring to Develop Talents and Foster Success Within the 'Pipeline'".

Like all biomedical research fields, AIDS research needs the broadest diversity of experiences and perspectives among researchers in the field if creative advancements are to be achieved. Mentors and mentoring are the most important vehicles by which the talents of young scientists are developed. However, mentoring as a teaching and learning paradigm is very complex and idiosyncratic, and often inadvertently fails to provide the same quality and quantity of opportunity to aspiring scientists who are 'different' from those doing the mentoring. This article provides a theoretical and practical framework for understanding how differences of race, ethnicity, gender, skin color, social status and other identifiable characteristics can play into scientific development during mentoring 'within the pipeline'. It also serves as a foundation upon which mentoring in AIDS is considered by subsequent papers in this series. Finally, it goes beyond mentoring to propose systematic coaching as an effective complement to research mentoring to promote success, especially for individuals from underrepresented groups.

Pain from bluebottle jellyfish stings.

An 11-year-old girl presented to the emergency department with severe pain after a jellyfish sting at a New South Wales beach. Bluebottle (Physalia) jellyfish was deemed the most likely cause considering her geographical location. The Australian Resuscitation Council Guideline (2010) suggests immersing in water as hot as can be tolerated for 20 min for treating pain from jellyfish stings. This guideline was written based on past case reports, books and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a search to assess the most current evidence for relief of pain from Bluebottle jellyfish stings, which yielded two systematic reviews and seven RCTs. Both systematic reviews had similar conclusions, with one of the RCTs used in both reviews showing the most relevance to our presenting patient in terms of demographics, location and jellyfish type. This journal club article is an appraisal of this RCT by Loten et al. and the validity of its conclusion that hot water immersion is most effective for the relief of pain from Bluebottle stings.

The Academy for Future Science Faculty: randomized controlled trial of theory-driven coaching to shape development and diversity of early-career scientists.

BACKGROUND: Approaches to training biomedical scientists have created a talented research community. However, they have failed to create a professional workforce that includes many racial and ethnic minorities and women in proportion to their representation in the population or in PhD training. This is particularly true at the faculty level. Explanations for the absence of diversity in faculty ranks can be found in social science theories that reveal processes by which individuals develop identities, experiences, and skills required to be seen as legitimate within the profession. METHODS/DESIGN: Using the social science theories of Communities of Practice, Social Cognitive Career Theory, identity formation, and cultural capital, we have developed and are testing a novel coaching-based model to address some of the limitations of previous diversity approaches. This coaching intervention (The Academy for Future Science Faculty) includes annual in-person meetings of students and trained faculty Career Coaches, along with ongoing virtual coaching, group meetings and communication. The model is being tested as a randomized controlled trial with two cohorts of biomedical PhD students from across the U.S., one recruited at the start of their PhDs and one nearing completion. Stratification into the experimental and control groups, and to coaching groups within the experimental arms, achieved equal numbers of students by race, ethnicity and gender to the extent possible. A fundamental design element of the Academy is to teach and make visible the social science principles which highly influence scientific advancement, as well as acknowledging the extra challenges faced by underrepresented groups working to be seen as legitimate within the scientific communities. DISCUSSION: The strategy being tested is based upon a novel application of the well-established principles of deploying highly skilled coaches, selected and trained for their ability to develop talents of others. This coaching model is intended to be a complement, rather than a substitute, for traditional mentoring in biomedical research training, and is being tested as such.

Enduring relief or fleeting respite? Bitcoin as a hedge and safe haven for the US dollar.

Can technology protect investors from extreme losses? This paper investigates the short- and long-run hedging and safe haven properties of Bitcoin for the US dollar over the period 2010-2023, incorporating the COVID-19-related market turmoil. Our findings reveal that (i) Bitcoin acts as a strong hedge for all US dollar currency pairs examined, (ii) Bitcoin functions as a weak safe haven for the US dollar at short investment horizons, as indicated by a limited relationship during acute negative price movements, (iii) Bitcoin, instead of acting as a safe haven may, instead, increase aggregate risk at long horizons during periods of extreme losses. The analysis, performed using a series of horizon-dependent econometric tests, provides evidence of some US dollar risk-reduction benefits from Bitcoin but limited potential for enduring relief from long-run extreme negative US dollar rate movements.

Using longitudinal qualitative research to understand the experiences of minoritized people.

This paper demonstrates how Longitudinal Qualitative Research (LQR) is an innovative method to understand the lived experiences of members of minoritized groups when temporality is a structuring element of their experiences. Most qualitative research in psychology is cross-sectional, which limits our understanding of individuals whose experiences are context-dependent and linked to the temporal norms of specific social environments. LQR is unique for allowing researchers to compare change and stability over time and reveal how social challenges and barriers impact perspective shifts and long-term decision-making. To demonstrate the usefulness of LQR as an inclusive methodology, we discuss an ongoing study of career decision-making among a diverse cohort of biomedical scientists. We have used annual interviews to follow biomedical science trainees from the beginning of their PhD into the initial stages of their careers. We present case studies of minoritized scientists to illustrate the methods for long-term engagement used to elicit sensitive and critical information during their training. We show how LQR is a viable methodology for a variety of research questions and can be accomplished using large or small sample sizes and limited resources. Our primary goal is to show how LQR is useful to understand the experiences of minoritized individuals in contexts that have historically excluded them.

Interventions for the symptoms and signs resulting from jellyfish stings.

BACKGROUND: Jellyfish envenomations are common amongst temperate coastal regions and vary in severity depending on the species. Stings result in a variety of symptoms and signs, including pain, dermatological reactions and, in some species, Irukandji syndrome (including abdominal/back/chest pain, tachycardia, hypertension, sweating, piloerection, agitation and sometimes cardiac complications). Many treatments have been suggested for the symptoms and signs of jellyfish stings. However, it is unclear which interventions are most effective. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms associated with the use of any intervention, in both adults and children, for the treatment of jellyfish stings, as assessed from randomised trials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases in October 2012 and again in October 2013: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL;The Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2013); MEDLINE via Ovid SP (1948 to 22 October 2013); EMBASE via Ovid SP (1980 to 21 October 2013); and Web of Science (all databases; 1899 to 21 October 2013). We also searched reference lists from eligible studies and guidelines, conference proceedings and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and contacted content experts to identify trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared any intervention(s) to active and/or non-active controls for the treatment of symptoms and signs of jellyfish sting envenomation. No language, publication date or publication status restrictions were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted study selection and data extraction and assessed risk of bias using a standardised form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus with a third review author when necessary. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials with a total of 435 participants. Three trials focused on Physalia (Bluebottle) jellyfish, one trial on Carukia jellyfish and three on Carybdea alata (Hawaiian box) jellyfish. Two ongoing trials were identified.Six of the seven trials were judged as having high risk of bias. Blinding was not feasible in four of the included trials because of the nature of the interventions. A wide range of interventions were assessed across trials, and a wide range of outcomes were measured. We reported results from the two trials for which data were available and reported the effects of interventions according to our definition of primary or secondary outcomes.Hot water immersion was superior to ice packs in achieving clinically significant (at least 50%) pain relief at 10 minutes (one trial, 96 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 2.72; low-quality evidence) and 20 minutes (one trial, 88 participants, RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.15; low-quality evidence). No statistically significant differences between hot water immersion and ice packs were demonstrated for dermatological outcomes.Treatment with vinegar or Adolph's meat tenderizer compared with hot water made skin appear worse (one trial, 25 participants, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.72; low-quality evidence).Adverse events due to treatment were not reported in any trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review located a small number of trials that assessed a variety of different interventions applied in different ways and in different settings. Although heat appears to be an effective treatment for Physalia (Bluebottle) stings, this evidence is based on a single trial of low-quality evidence. It is still unclear what type of application, temperature, duration of treatment and type of water (salt or fresh) constitute the most effective treatment. In addition, these results may not apply to other species of jellyfish with different envenomation characteristics. Future research should further assess the most effective interventions using standardised research methodology.

Systematic reviews of surgical procedures in children: quantity, coverage and quality.

AIM: Systematic reviews have the potential to map those areas where children are under-represented in surgical research. We aimed to describe and evaluate the quantity, coverage and the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of surgical procedures in children. METHODS: We searched four biomedical databases, a systematic review register, reference lists and conducted hand searching to identify relevant reviews. Two reviewers worked independently to critically appraise included studies and abstract data. We assessed reporting quality using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statement and methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple SysTemAtic Reviews tool. RESULTS: Fifteen systematic reviews were identified, representing 0.01% of all paediatric surgical citations in MEDLINE and Embase. Thirteen of the reviews were Cochrane reviews, and most reviews (12/15) addressed subspecialty interests such as otorhinolaryngology. The median number of included trials per systematic review was four (interquartile range 1 to 9.5), the median number of primary outcomes was 5.5 (interquartile range 3.5 to 7.5). In general, reporting and methodological quality was good although there were several omissions, particularly around completeness of reporting of statistical methods used, and utilisation of quality assessments in analyses. Outcomes were often not clearly defined and descriptions of procedures lacked sufficient detail to determine the similarities and differences among surgical procedures within the contributing trials. CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews of surgical procedures in children are rarely published. To improve the evidence base and guide research agendas, more systematic reviews should be conducted, using standard guidelines for conduct and reporting.