Modelling and comparing the use of IVF and ICSI in Australia.

PURPOSE: This study estimates the need of IVF/ICSI in Australia as compared to its actual uptake. METHODS: We created a model estimating for the annual demand for IVF/ICSI in a hypothetical infertile population, using demographic data from medical literature and Australian government databases. For each category of infertility (tubal, severe male, endometriosis, anovulation and unexplained), our estimated need for IVF/ICSI was compared to the actual IVF/ICSI uptake (ANZARD 2019). The model consisted of three categories depending on couples' cause of infertility, i.e. couples with absolute indications for IVF/ICSI (couples with severe male factor infertility and tubal obstruction); couples with anovulatory infertility (couples with ovulation disorders) and couples with ovulatory infertility (couples suffering from unexplained infertility and endometriosis). The model was applied to each of these categories to determine the number of couples that would require IVF/ICSI treatment after failing to conceive naturally or after following alternative treatment plans. The main outcomes of this study were the estimate of IVF/ICSI cycles and the difference between the estimate and the reported number of IVF/ICSI cycles (2019 ANZARD report). RESULTS: We estimated that approximately 35,300 couples required IVF/ICSI treatment in Australia in 2019, while in 2019 according to ANZARD, 46,000 couples underwent IVF/ICSI. A higher uptake of IVF/ICSI cycles than expected was specifically reported in couples with unexplained infertility, ovulation disorders and endometriosis, while for tubal and severe male infertility uptake seemed adequate. CONCLUSION: In Australia, there seems to be overservicing of IVF/ICSI, specifically for unexplained, ovulatory and endometriosis-related infertility.

Cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Previous Cochrane Reviews have shown that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is effective in treating childhood anxiety disorders. However, questions remain regarding the following: up-to-date evidence of the relative efficacy and acceptability of CBT compared to waiting lists/no treatment, treatment as usual, attention controls, and alternative treatments; benefits across a range of outcomes; longer-term effects; outcomes for different delivery formats; and amongst children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and children with intellectual impairments. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of CBT for childhood anxiety disorders, in comparison with waitlist/no treatment, treatment as usual (TAU), attention control, alternative treatment, and medication. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (all years to 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (each to October 2019), international trial registries, and conducted grey literature searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of CBT that involved direct contact with the child, parent, or both, and included non-CBT comparators (waitlist/no treatment, treatment as usual, attention control, alternative treatment, medication). Participants were younger than age 19, and met diagnostic criteria for an anxiety disorder diagnosis. Primary outcomes were remission of primary anxiety diagnosis post-treatment, and acceptability (number of participants lost to post-treatment assessment), and secondary outcomes included remission of all anxiety diagnoses, reduction in anxiety symptoms, reduction in depressive symptoms, improvement in global functioning, adverse effects, and longer-term effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 87 studies and 5964 participants in quantitative analyses. Compared with waitlist/no treatment, CBT probably increases post-treatment remission of primary anxiety diagnoses (CBT: 49.4%, waitlist/no treatment: 17.8%; OR 5.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.90 to 7.60; n = 2697, 39 studies, moderate quality); NNTB 3 (95% CI 2.25 to 3.57) and all anxiety diagnoses (OR 4.43, 95% CI 2.89 to 6.78; n = 2075, 28 studies, moderate quality). Low-quality evidence did not show a difference between CBT and TAU in post-treatment primary anxiety disorder remission (OR 3.19, 95% CI 0.90 to 11.29; n = 487, 8 studies), but did suggest CBT may increase remission from all anxiety disorders compared to TAU (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.16 to 6.46; n = 203, 5 studies). Compared with attention control, CBT may increase post-treatment remission of primary anxiety disorders (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.89; n = 822, 10 studies, low quality) and all anxiety disorders (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.22 to 6.17; n = 378, 5 studies, low quality). There was insufficient available data to compare CBT to alternative treatments on post-treatment remission of primary anxiety disorders, and low-quality evidence showed there may be little to no difference between these groups on post-treatment remission of all anxiety disorders (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.23; n = 401, 4 studies) Low-quality evidence did not show a difference for acceptability between CBT and waitlist/no treatment (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41; n=3158, 45 studies), treatment as usual (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.56; n = 441, 8 studies), attention control (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.49; n = 797, 12 studies) and alternative treatment (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.13; n=515, 7 studies). No adverse effects were reported across all studies; however, in the small number of studies where any reference was made to adverse effects, it was not clear that these were systematically monitored. Results from the anxiety symptom outcomes, broader outcomes, longer-term outcomes and subgroup analyses are provided in the text. We did not find evidence of consistent differences in outcomes according to delivery formats (e.g. individual versus group; amount of therapist contact time) or amongst samples with and without ASD, and no studies included samples of children with intellectual impairments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CBT is probably more effective in the short-term than waiting lists/no treatment, and may be more effective than attention control. We found little to no evidence across outcomes that CBT is superior to usual care or alternative treatments, but our confidence in these findings are limited due to concerns about the amount and quality of available evidence, and we still know little about how best to efficiently improve outcomes.

Cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: A previous Cochrane review (James 2005) showed that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was effective in treating childhood anxiety disorders; however, questions remain regarding (1) the relative efficacy of CBT versus non-CBT active treatments; (2) the relative efficacy of CBT versus medication and the combination of CBT and medication versus placebo; and (3) the long-term effects of CBT.  OBJECTIVES: To examine (1) whether CBT is an effective treatment for childhood and adolescent anxiety disorders in comparison with (a) wait-list controls; (b) active non-CBT treatments (i.e. psychological placebo, bibliotherapy and treatment as usual (TAU)); and (c) medication and the combination of medication and CBT versus placebo; and (2) the long-term effects of CBT. SEARCH METHODS: Searches for this review included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Register, which consists of relevant randomised controlled trials from the bibliographic databases－The Cochrane Library (1970 to July 2012), EMBASE, (1970 to July 2012) MEDLINE (1970 to July 2012) and PsycINFO (1970 to July 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CBT versus waiting list, active control conditions, TAU or medication were reviewed. All participants must have met the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) for an anxiety diagnosis, excluding simple phobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and elective mutism. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The methodological quality of included trials was assessed by three reviewers independently. For the dichotomous outcome of remission of anxiety diagnosis, the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on the random-effects model, with pooling of data via the inverse variance method of weighting, was used. Significance was set at P < 0.05. Continuous data on each child's anxiety symptoms were pooled using the standardised mean difference (SMD). MAIN RESULTS: Forty-one studies consisting of 1806 participants were included in the analyses. The studies involved children and adolescents with anxiety of mild to moderate severity in university and community clinics and school settings. For the primary outcome of remission of any anxiety diagnosis for CBT versus waiting list controls, intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses with 26 studies and 1350 participants showed an OR of 7.85 (95% CI 5.31 to 11.60, Z = 10.26, P < 0.0001), but with evidence of moderate heterogeneity (P = 0.04, I² = 33%). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 6.0 (95% CI 7.5 to 4.6). No difference in outcome was noted between individual, group and family/parental formats. ITT analyses revealed that CBT was no more effective than non-CBT active control treatments (six studies, 426 participants) or TAU in reducing anxiety diagnoses (two studies, 88 participants). The few controlled follow-up studies (n = 4) indicate that treatment gains in the remission of anxiety diagnosis are not statistically significant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive behavioural therapy is an effective treatment for childhood and adolescent anxiety disorders; however, the evidence suggesting that CBT is more effective than active controls or TAU or medication at follow-up, is limited and inconclusive.

Cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: A previous Cochrane review (James 2005) showed that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was effective in treating childhood anxiety disorders; however, questions remain regarding (1) the relative efficacy of CBT versus non-CBT active treatments; (2) the relative efficacy of CBT versus medication and the combination of CBT and medication versus placebo; and (3) the long-term effects of CBT.  OBJECTIVES: To examine (1) whether CBT is an effective treatment for childhood and adolescent anxiety disorders in comparison with (a) wait-list controls; (b) active non-CBT treatments (i.e. psychological placebo, bibliotherapy and treatment as usual (TAU)); and (c) medication and the combination of medication and CBT versus placebo; and (2) the long-term effects of CBT. SEARCH METHODS: Searches for this review included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Register, which consists of relevant randomised controlled trials from the bibliographic databases－The Cochrane Library (1970 to July 2012), EMBASE, (1970 to July 2012) MEDLINE (1970 to July 2012) and PsycINFO (1970 to July 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CBT versus waiting list, active control conditions, TAU or medication were reviewed. All participants must have met the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) for an anxiety diagnosis, excluding simple phobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and elective mutism. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The methodological quality of included trials was assessed by three reviewers independently. For the dichotomous outcome of remission of anxiety diagnosis, the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on the random-effects model, with pooling of data via the inverse variance method of weighting, was used. Significance was set at P < 0.05. Continuous data on each child's anxiety symptoms were pooled using the standardised mean difference (SMD). MAIN RESULTS: Forty-one studies consisting of 1806 participants were included in the analyses. The studies involved children and adolescents with anxiety of mild to moderate severity in university and community clinics and school settings. For the primary outcome of remission of any anxiety diagnosis for CBT versus waiting list controls, intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses with 26 studies and 1350 participants showed an OR of 0.13 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.19, Z = 10.26, P < 0.0001), but with evidence of moderate heterogeneity (P = 0.04, I² = 33%). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 6.0 (95% CI 7.5 to 4.6). No difference in outcome was noted between individual, group and family/parental formats. ITT analyses revealed that CBT was no more effective than non-CBT active control treatments (six studies, 426 participants) or TAU in reducing anxiety diagnoses (two studies, 88 participants). The few controlled follow-up studies (n = 4) indicate that treatment gains in the remission of anxiety diagnosis are not statistically significant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive behavioural therapy is an effective treatment for childhood and adolescent anxiety disorders; however, the evidence suggesting that CBT is more effective than active controls or TAU or medication at follow-up, is limited and inconclusive.

Changing to remote psychological therapy during COVID-19: Psychological therapists' experience of the working alliance, therapeutic boundaries and work involvement.

RESEARCH AIMS: This study aimed to investigate psychological therapists' perceived ability to form a working alliance and maintain therapeutic boundaries, and their work involvement patterns whilst working remotely via telephone or videoconferencing. Furthermore, the study aimed to explore therapists' experience of therapeutic boundaries when working remotely and how they managed these. METHOD: A mixed-method sequential explanatory design was adopted. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse quantitative data, with thematic analysis used to analyse qualitative data. RESULTS: In total, 161 psychological therapists completed an online survey, and 12 participants were selected using maximum variation sampling to engage in a semi-structured interview. Although results between therapists varied, some perceived abilities regarding the working alliance and therapeutic boundaries differed when working remotely compared to face-to-face therapy. Therapists' work involvement patterns also differed compared to existing data for face-to-face therapy, indicated by increased rates of stressful involvement. Considering therapists' experience of therapeutic boundaries, four overarching themes were identified: 'different boundaries in remote therapy', 'work home boundary', 'changes in the therapeutic safe space' and 'impact of boundaries when working remotely'. CONCLUSIONS: Aspects of the working alliance and therapeutic boundaries are experienced differently by therapists working remotely, which relates to how they experience their work. The findings have clinical implications for increasing therapists' awareness of potential changes in their perceived abilities regarding the working alliance and therapeutic boundaries when working remotely, therefore, enabling them to address these changes where required. Future research possibilities are considered.

A rare case of abdominal wall necrotizing fasciitis caused by Actinomyces europaeus-a novel pathogen.

Actinomyces europaeus is a sub-species of actinomyces first isolated in humans in 1997. It is commensal bacteria found within the genitourinary and gastrointestinal tract. Although it is known to cause soft tissue infection and has been known to cause abscesses, it has never been identified as the primary pathogen in a case of necrotizing fasciitis. We present the case of a 59-year-old man with recurrent groin infections, poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes and obesity who developed necrotizing fasciitis of his lower abdominal wall secondary to Actinomyces europaeus. We discuss the clinical course and the value of early identification of the pathogen and specialist microbiologist advice.

How does image noise affect actual and predicted human gaze allocation in assessing image quality?

A central research question in natural vision is how to allocate fixation to extract informative cues for scene perception. With high quality images, psychological and computational studies have made significant progress to understand and predict human gaze allocation in scene exploration. However, it is unclear whether these findings can be generalised to degraded naturalistic visual inputs. In this eye-tracking and computational study, we methodically distorted both man-made and natural scenes with Gaussian low-pass filter, circular averaging filter and Additive Gaussian white noise, and monitored participants' gaze behaviour in assessing perceived image qualities. Compared with original high quality images, distorted images attracted fewer numbers of fixations but longer fixation durations, shorter saccade distance and stronger central fixation bias. This impact of image noise manipulation on gaze distribution was mainly determined by noise intensity rather than noise type, and was more pronounced for natural scenes than for man-made scenes. We furthered compared four high performing visual attention models in predicting human gaze allocation in degraded scenes, and found that model performance lacked human-like sensitivity to noise type and intensity, and was considerably worse than human performance measured as inter-observer variance. Furthermore, the central fixation bias is a major predictor for human gaze allocation, which becomes more prominent with increased noise intensity. Our results indicate a crucial role of external noise intensity in determining scene-viewing gaze behaviour, which should be considered in the development of realistic human-vision-inspired attention models.

No walls here--a remarkable vision.

Georgina James of Arup Australia reports on the design of a new cancer centre in Sydney, Australia, which brings together cutting edge treatment and translational research facilities, a highly sustainable design, and the flexibility to adapt to cater for new "research directions and technologies" in the future.