Protocol for validation of the Global Scales for Early Development (GSED) for children under 3 years of age in seven countries.

INTRODUCTION: Children's early development is affected by caregiving experiences, with lifelong health and well-being implications. Governments and civil societies need population-based measures to monitor children's early development and ensure that children receive the care needed to thrive. To this end, the WHO developed the Global Scales for Early Development (GSED) to measure children's early development up to 3 years of age. The GSED includes three measures for population and programmatic level measurement: (1) short form (SF) (caregiver report), (2) long form (LF) (direct administration) and (3) psychosocial form (PF) (caregiver report). The primary aim of this protocol is to validate the GSED SF and LF. Secondary aims are to create preliminary reference scores for the GSED SF and LF, validate an adaptive testing algorithm and assess the feasibility and preliminary validity of the GSED PF. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct the validation in seven countries (Bangladesh, Brazil, Côte d'Ivoire, Pakistan, The Netherlands, People's Republic of China, United Republic of Tanzania), varying in geography, language, culture and income through a 1-year prospective design, combining cross-sectional and longitudinal methods with 1248 children per site, stratified by age and sex. The GSED generates an innovative common metric (Developmental Score: D-score) using the Rasch model and a Development for Age Z-score (DAZ). We will evaluate six psychometric properties of the GSED SF and LF: concurrent validity, predictive validity at 6 months, convergent and discriminant validity, and test-retest and inter-rater reliability. We will evaluate measurement invariance by comparing differential item functioning and differential test functioning across sites. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received ethical approval from the WHO (protocol GSED validation 004583 20.04.2020) and approval in each site. Study results will be disseminated through webinars and publications from WHO, international organisations, academic journals and conference proceedings. REGISTRATION DETAILS: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/ on 19 November 2021 (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/KX5T7; identifier: osf-registrations-kx5t7-v1).

The Shock Index is not accurate at predicting outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains a major cause of hospital admission worldwide. The recent UK National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) report on severe gastrointestinal bleeding used the Shock Index to assess bleeding severity and found an association between Shock Index and mortality. However, this has never been prospectively validated as a predictor of outcome in UGIB. AIMS: To compare the Shock Index with existing pre-endoscopic UGIB risk scores in predicting outcomes after UGIB METHODS: In an international, prospective study of 3012 consecutive patients with UGIB, we compared the Shock Index with existing scores including the Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS), admission Rockall score, AIMS65, and the newly described "ABC" score. Pre-determined endpoints were need for major (≥4 units red cells) transfusion, need for endoscopic therapy and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The Shock Index was inferior to the GBS in predicting need for major transfusion (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve [AUROC] 0.655 vs 0.836, P < 0.001) and need for endotherapy (AUROC 0.606 vs 0.747, P < 0.001). The Shock Index was inferior to all other scores for 30-day mortality: for example, AUROC 0.611 vs 0.863 for ABC score (P < 0.001). Adding the Shock Index to the ABC score did not improve accuracy of the ABC score in predicting mortality (AUROC 0.864 vs 0.863, P = 0.95). CONCLUSION: The Shock Index performed poorly with AUROCs <0.66 and was inferior to existing pre-endoscopy scores at predicting major clinical endpoints after UGIB. We found no clear evidence that the Shock Index is clinically useful at predicting outcomes in UGIB. [Correction added on 20 December 2019, after first online publication: Summary section has been changed for clarification.].

A Postprocedure Wrap-up Tool for Improving OR Communication and Performance.

In 2015, perioperative nursing staff members at a community hospital designed and implemented a tool to help improve communication and performance. Our postprocedure wrap-up tool and its follow-up process have allowed us to achieve improvements in both efficiency and staff member satisfaction. By implementing a process to document problems as they occur and quickly transmit information to the staff members who are best able to correct these issues, we greatly improved our workflow. Furthermore, by inputting information into spreadsheets using problem codes, thereby replacing anecdotal information with hard data, we targeted areas that needed improvement and used that information for budget planning, training, and allocating resources. Enlisting the input of all members of the surgical team allowed us to identify the root causes of issues that interfered with the staff members' ability to provide efficient, safe, and reliable patient care.

Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2015. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of home-based and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, exercise-capacity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease. SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) on 21 September 2016. We also searched two clinical trials registers as well as previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, including parallel group, cross-over or quasi-randomised designs) that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, gymnasium, sports centre) with home-based programmes in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure or who had undergone revascularisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on pre-defined inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by involving a third review author. Two authors independently extracted outcome data and study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE principles and a Summary of findings table was created. MAIN RESULTS: We included six new studies (624 participants) for this update, which now includes a total of 23 trials that randomised a total of 2890 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. Participants had an acute myocardial infarction, revascularisation or heart failure. A number of studies provided insufficient detail to enable assessment of potential risk of bias, in particular, details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequencing and blinding of outcome assessment were poorly reported.No evidence of a difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in clinical primary outcomes up to 12 months of follow up: total mortality (relative risk (RR) = 1.19, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.16; participants = 1505; studies = 11/comparisons = 13; very low quality evidence), exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.13, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.02; participants = 2255; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low quality evidence), or health-related quality of life up to 24 months (not estimable). Trials were generally of short duration, with only three studies reporting outcomes beyond 12 months (exercise capacity: SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.23; participants = 1074; studies = 3; moderate quality evidence). However, there was evidence of marginally higher levels of programme completion (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08; participants = 2615; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low quality evidence) by home-based participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update supports previous conclusions that home- and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be similarly effective in improving clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding supports the continued expansion of evidence-based, home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes. The choice of participating in a more traditional and supervised centre-based programme or a home-based programme may reflect local availability and consider the preference of the individual patient. Further data are needed to determine whether the effects of home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation reported in the included short-term trials can be confirmed in the longer term and need to consider adequately powered non-inferiority or equivalence study designs.

Home-based cardiac rehabilitation for people with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To assess the effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) for heart failure compared to either usual medical care (i.e. no CR) or centre-based CR on mortality, morbidity, exercise capacity, health-related quality of life, drop out, adherence rates, and costs. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials were initially identified from previous systematic reviews of CR. We undertook updated literature searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library to December 2015. A total of 19 trials with median follow up of 3months were included - 17 comparisons of home-based CR to usual care (995 patients) and four comparing home and centre-based CR (295 patients). RESULTS: Compared to usual care, home-based CR improved VO2max (mean difference: 1.6ml/kg/min, 0.8 to 2.4) and total Minnesota Living with Quality of Life score (-3.3, -7.5 to 1.0), with no difference in mortality, hospitalisation or study drop out. Outcomes and costs were similar between home-based and centre-based CR with the exception of higher levels of trial completion in the home-based group (relative risk: 1.2, 1.0 to 1.3). CONCLUSIONS: Home-based CR results in short-term improvements in exercise capacity and health-related quality of life of heart failure patients compared to usual care. The magnitude of outcome improvement is similar to centre-based CR. Home-based CR appears to be safe with no evidence of increased risk of hospitalisation or death. These findings support the provision of home-based CR for heart failure as an evidence-based alternative to the traditional centre-based model of provision.

Nutritional Considerations for Dogs and Cats with Liver Disease.

The goals of nutritional management of liver disease in the dog and cat are directed at treating the clinical manifestations as opposed to treating the underlying cause. Specifically, the clinician strives to avoid overwhelming the remaining metabolic capacities of the damaged liver while providing sufficient nutrients for regeneration. A brief overview of liver diseases and associated clinical signs encountered in the dog and cat and a review of specific nutrients are discussed as well as amounts and sources of nutrients recommended to meet nutritional goals in the diseased liver.

Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation. This is an update of a review originally published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of home-based and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease. SEARCH METHODS: To update searches from the previous Cochrane review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2014), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to October week 1 2014), EMBASE (Ovid, 1980 to 2014 week 41), PsycINFO (Ovid, 1806 to October week 2 2014), and CINAHL (EBSCO, to October 2014). We checked reference lists of included trials and recent systematic reviews. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, gymnasium, sports centre) with home-based programmes in adults with myocardial infarction (MI), angina, heart failure or who had undergone revascularisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of the identified trials and data were extracted by a single author and checked by a second. Authors were contacted where possible to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen trials included a total of 2172 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation following an acute MI or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This update included an additional five trials on 345 patients with heart failure. Authors of a number of included trials failed to give sufficient detail to assess their potential risk of bias, and details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequence were particularly poorly reported. In the main, no difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in outcomes up to 12 months of follow up: mortality (relative risk (RR) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.47, P = 0.46, fixed-effect), cardiac events (data not poolable), exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.10, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.08, P = 0.29, random-effects), modifiable risk factors (total cholesterol: mean difference (MD) = 0.07 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.11, P = 0.47, random-effects; low density lipoprotein cholesterol: MD = -0.06 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.15, P = 0.55, random-effects; systolic blood pressure: mean difference (MD) = 0.19 mmHg, 95% CI -3.37 to 3.75, P = 0.92, random-effects; proportion of smokers at follow up (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.21, P = 0.83, fixed-effect), or health-related quality of life (not poolable). Small outcome differences in favour of centre-based participants were seen in high density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD = -0.07 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.03, P = 0.001, fixed-effect), and triglycerides (MD = -0.18 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.02, P = 0.03, fixed-effect, diastolic blood pressure (MD = -1.86 mmHg; 95% CI -0.76 to -2.95, P = 0.0009, fixed-effect). In contrast, in home-based participants, there was evidence of a marginally higher levels of programme completion (RR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07, P = 0.009, fixed-effect) and adherence to the programme (not poolable). No consistent difference was seen in healthcare costs between the two forms of cardiac rehabilitation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated review supports the conclusions of the previous version of this review that home- and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be equally effective for improving the clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in low risk patients after MI or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding, together with the absence of evidence of important differences in healthcare costs between the two approaches, supports the continued expansion of evidence-based, home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes. The choice of participating in a more traditional and supervised centre-based programme or a home-based programme should reflect the preference of the individual patient. Further data are needed to determine whether the effects of home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation reported in these short-term trials can be confirmed in the longer term. A number of studies failed to give sufficient detail to assess their risk of bias.

Free-classification of perceptually similar speakers with dysarthria.

PURPOSE: In this investigation, the construct of perceptual similarity was explored in the dysarthrias. Specifically, we employed an auditory free-classification task to determine whether listeners could cluster speakers by perceptual similarity, whether the clusters mapped to acoustic metrics, and whether the clusters were constrained by dysarthria subtype diagnosis. METHOD: Twenty-three listeners blinded to speakers' medical and dysarthria subtype diagnoses participated. The task was to group together (drag and drop) the icons corresponding to 33 speakers with dysarthria on the basis of how similar they sounded. Cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling (MDS) modeled the perceptual dimensions underlying similarity. Acoustic metrics and perceptual judgments were used in correlation analyses to facilitate interpretation of the derived dimensions. RESULTS: Six clusters of similar-sounding speakers and 3 perceptual dimensions underlying similarity were revealed. The clusters of similar-sounding speakers were not constrained by dysarthria subtype diagnosis. The 3 perceptual dimensions revealed by MDS were correlated with metrics for articulation rate, intelligibility, and vocal quality, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows (a) feasibility of a free-classification approach for studying perceptual similarity in dysarthria, (b) correspondence between acoustic and perceptual metrics to clusters of similar-sounding speakers, and (c) similarity judgments transcended dysarthria subtype diagnosis.

Comparative genomics of the apicomplexan parasites Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum: Coccidia differing in host range and transmission strategy.

Toxoplasma gondii is a zoonotic protozoan parasite which infects nearly one third of the human population and is found in an extraordinary range of vertebrate hosts. Its epidemiology depends heavily on horizontal transmission, especially between rodents and its definitive host, the cat. Neospora caninum is a recently discovered close relative of Toxoplasma, whose definitive host is the dog. Both species are tissue-dwelling Coccidia and members of the phylum Apicomplexa; they share many common features, but Neospora neither infects humans nor shares the same wide host range as Toxoplasma, rather it shows a striking preference for highly efficient vertical transmission in cattle. These species therefore provide a remarkable opportunity to investigate mechanisms of host restriction, transmission strategies, virulence and zoonotic potential. We sequenced the genome of N. caninum and transcriptomes of the invasive stage of both species, undertaking an extensive comparative genomics and transcriptomics analysis. We estimate that these organisms diverged from their common ancestor around 28 million years ago and find that both genomes and gene expression are remarkably conserved. However, in N. caninum we identified an unexpected expansion of surface antigen gene families and the divergence of secreted virulence factors, including rhoptry kinases. Specifically we show that the rhoptry kinase ROP18 is pseudogenised in N. caninum and that, as a possible consequence, Neospora is unable to phosphorylate host immunity-related GTPases, as Toxoplasma does. This defense strategy is thought to be key to virulence in Toxoplasma. We conclude that the ecological niches occupied by these species are influenced by a relatively small number of gene products which operate at the host-parasite interface and that the dominance of vertical transmission in N. caninum may be associated with the evolution of reduced virulence in this species.