Standards und Entwicklungen in der Behandlung von Cholangiokarzinomen

best practice onkologie - Gallengangskarzinome werden entsprechend ihrer Lokalisation in distale, perihiläre und intrahepatische Cholangiokarzinome (CCA) unterteilt. Neben unterschiedlichen...     

Iodine status of breastfed infants and their mothers' breast milk iodine concentration

Iodine is an essential nutrient for growth and development during infancy. Data on iodine status of exclusively (EBF) and partially breastfed (PBF) infants as well as breast milk iodine concentration (BMIC) are scarce. We aimed to assess (a) infant iodine nutrition at the age of 5.5 months by measuring urinary iodine concentration (UIC) in EBF (n = 32) and PBF (n = 28) infants and (b) mothers' breast milk iodine concentration (n = 57). Sixty mother–infant pairs from three primary health care centres in Reykjavik and vicinities provided urine and breast milk samples for iodine analysis and information on mothers' habitual diet. The mother–infant pairs were participants of the IceAge2 study, which focuses on factors contributing to infant growth and development, including body composition and breast‐milk energy content. The median (25th–75th percentiles) UIC was 152 (79–239) μg/L, with no significant difference between EBF and PBF infants. The estimated median iodine intake ranged from 52 to 86 μg/day, based on urinary data (assuming an average urine volume of 300–500 ml/day and UIC from the present study). The median (25th–75th percentiles) BMIC was 84 (48–114) μg/L. It is difficult to conclude whether iodine status is adequate in the present study, as no ranges for median UIC reflecting optimal iodine nutrition exist for infants. However, the results add important information to the relatively sparse literature on UIC, BMIC, and iodine intake of breastfed infants.     

Assessing the clinical significance of treatment outcomes for distressing voices in routine clinical practice

Determining reliable and clinically significant change is central to evidence‐based practice yet rarely used in routine clinical settings. This paper illustrates these methods in the context of an evaluation of cognitive behaviour therapy for distressing auditory hallucinations (“voices”). We used data from a clinical sample attending Perth Voices Clinic, a transdiagnostic outpatient service for distressing voices, and a previously published reference sample of healthy voice hearers. Our outcomes on the primary measure of voice distress, derived from a previous factor analysis of the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scale‐Auditory Hallucinations subscale, showed that 62.9% of clients were classified as Recovered/Improved, 35.5% were classified as Unchanged, and 0.02% were classified as Deteriorated. Partial support for the validity of these classifications was obtained from the scores on the Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scales (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) but not on the Social and Occupational Functional Assessment Scale (Goldman et al., 1992). Clients classified as Recovered showed better emotional functioning on the Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scales compared with those who did not make a clinically significant change in voice distress. A tool is provided to assist practitioners to evaluate whether individual clients have benefited from therapy for distressing voices or not, which can be used to guide future treatment decisions ( https://osf.io/gd9e5/ ).