Differentiating poor validity from probable impairment on the medical symptom validity test: a cross-validation study

Aims: In neuropsychological evaluations, it is often difficult to ascertain whether poor performance on measures of validity is due to poor effort or malingering, or whether there is genuine cognitive impairment. Dunham and Denney created an algorithm to assess this question using the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT). We assessed the ability of their algorithm to detect poor validity versus probable impairment, and concordance of failure on the MSVT with other freestanding tests of performance validity.

Methods: Two previously published datasets (n?=?153 and n?=?641, respectively) from outpatient neuropsychological evaluations were used to test Dunham and Denney’s algorithm, and to assess concordance of failure rates with the Test of Memory Malingering and the forced choice measure of the California Verbal Learning Test, two commonly used performance validity tests.

Results: In both datasets, none of the four cutoff scores for failure on the MSVT (70%, 75%, 80%, or 85%) identified a poor validity group with proportionally aligned failure rates on other freestanding measures of performance validity. Additionally, the protocols with probable impairment did not differ from those with poor validity on cognitive measures.

Conclusions: Despite what appeared to be a promising approach to evaluating failure on the easy MSVT subtests when clinical data are unavailable (as recommended in the advanced interpretation program, or advanced interpretation [AI], of the MSVT), the current findings indicate the AI remains the gold standard for doing so. Future research should build on this effort to address shortcomings in measures of effort in neuropsychological evaluations.     

薄层色谱法在当前中药质量标准中的应用探讨

薄层色谱鉴别在历版《中国药典》中的应用经历了从无到有、从少到多的过程；而薄层扫描含量测定在最近几版《中国药典》中的应用比例逐渐降低。随着对中药质量标准体系要求的进一步提高，薄层色谱法的不足之处陆续显现，如仪器普及率低、设备并不简单、结果重复性和稳定性较差、鉴别速度及准确性不及高效液相色谱法、展开剂毒性大等，逐渐不合时宜。在制定中药质量标准时，研究者不应该墨守成规，薄层色谱鉴别也不应该是雷打不动的定性鉴别必备选项。高效液相色谱法具备完全取代薄层色谱法的可行性，薄层色谱法可作为高效液相色谱法的补充。为充分降低检测成本、缩短检测周期、提高鉴别效率，笔者建议中药质量标准体系应该大幅减少薄层色谱鉴别方法的应用，增加高效液相特征图谱鉴定，尽量做到“一个条件，一张图谱”；除非确有必要，《中国药典》等国家质量标准体系应将薄层色谱鉴别作为推荐方法，而非强制标准。     

Care of Seniors with Breast Cancer – Treatment Received and Refining Decision Making

AimsTreatment decisions for older patients with breast cancer are complex and evidence is largely extrapolated from younger populations. Frailty and comorbidity need to be considered. We studied the baseline characteristics and treatment decisions in older patients in Christchurch with breast cancer and assessed survival outcomes and prognostic/discriminatory performance of several tools.Materials and methodsWe searched the Canterbury Breast Cancer Registry and identified patients aged 70 years or older at diagnosis with invasive, non-metastatic breast cancer between 1 June 2009 and 30 June 2015. We retrieved demographics, treatment and outcome information. Overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival were estimated. Tools analysing performance status and comorbidity were assessed for their prognostic and discriminatory power.ResultsIn total, 440 patients were identified. Primary surgery was carried out for 362 patients (82.3%): breast-conserving surgery in 114 (of whom 88.6% received radiation therapy); mastectomy in 248 (of whom 24.6% received radiation). Hormone therapy was given for 265 (71.1%) patients with oestrogen receptor-positive cancers. Two hundred and seventy-four (62.3%) patients received full standard treatment, which was associated with significantly improved 5-year survival and 5-year breast cancer-specific survival. The median estimated overall survival was 8.2 years (95% confidence interval 7.3–9.1 years). Of those who died, 71.3% of deaths were due to causes other than breast cancer or unknown causes. The comorbidity-adjusted life expectancy (CALE) showed partial prognostic accuracy. CALE, Charlson and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group tools all showed discriminatory value.ConclusionIn this population-based series of older patients with breast cancer, showing high levels of primary and adjuvant treatment, patients were more likely to die of causes other than breast cancer. Performance status and comorbidity tools showed prognostic and discriminatory potential in this population supporting their use in treatment decision making. CALE showed the most potential to improve treatment decisions but requires validation in this population to improve prognostic accuracy.     

Detrended fluctuation analysis detects altered coordination of running gait in athletes following a heavy period of training

Objectives

To investigate whether functional overreaching affects locomotor system behaviour when running at fixed relative intensities and if any effects were associated with changes in running performance.

尿液10项肾损伤标志物检测试剂的性能评价

摘要:目的对尿液 10项肾损伤标志物检测试剂进行性能评价,并评估其临床适用性。方法对北京利德曼公司尿液a1 微球蛋白(u-a|MG)、总蛋白(u-TP)、免疫球蛋白G(u-IgG) 、微量清蛋白(u-Alb)、中性粒细胞明胶酶相关脂质运载蛋白(u-NGAL)、半胱氨酸蛋白酶抑制剂C(u-CysC).视黄醇结合蛋白(u-RBP)、β2微球蛋白(u-β2MG)、N-乙酰-β-D-氨基葡萄糖苷酶(u-NAG).、转铁蛋白(u-Trf)检测试剂盒进行性能评价。正确度和精密度验证参考美国临床和实验室标准协会(CLSI)EP15-A3,验证物质采用ERM-DA470k、ERM-DA471、B2M-NIBSC等参考物质及纯度物质;线性验证参考CLSI EP06;抗干扰能力参考CISI EP07;不同检测系统间比对参考CISI EP09。结果正确度方面,10 项标志物检测试剂测定标准物质在低值、中值、高值的偏倚分别为-2.69% ~4.67%、-3.60% ~3.33% .-2.38% ~3.02%;不精密度方面,重复性以不精密度表示,在低值和高值处分别为1.90%~5.43%、0.63% ~2.42%,室内不精密度为2.27%~5.63%、1.09%~3.41%,均满足临床要求;10项尿液标志物线性范围在0.06~4.40 mg/L至21.83~2 146.77 mg/L之间。抗干扰方面,u-1 MG、u-Alb、u-β2MG、u-Trf 、u-CysC、u-NAG分别在血红蛋白终浓度≤8 g/L、≤8 g/L、≤4 g/L、≤4 g/L、≤2g/L、≤1 g/L时,未受到明显干扰(百分偏差≤+ 10%) ,而u-TP、u-IgG、 u-RBP、u-NGAL在血红蛋白终浓度≥0.125 g/L时即受干扰。不同检测系统间偏差超出临床允许范围。结论尿液 10项肾损伤标志物的正确度、精密度、线性范围和抗血红蛋白干扰能力满足临床需要,不同检测系统间标志物测量结果可比性欠佳。     

Tester and testing procedure influence clinically determined gait speed

BackgroundThere is a clinical need to be able to reliably detect meaningful changes (0.1 to 0.2 m/s) in usual gait speed (UGS) considering reduced gait speed is associated with morbidity and mortality.Research questionWhat is the impact of tester on UGS assessment, and the influence of test repetition (trial 1 vs. 2), timing method (manual stopwatch vs. automated timing), and starting condition (stationary vs. dynamic start) on the ability to detect changes in UGS and fast gait speed (FGS)?MethodsUGS and FGS was assessed in 725 participants on a 8-m course with infrared timing gates positioned at 0, 2, 4 and 6 m. Testing was performed by one of 13 testers trained by a single researcher. Time to walk 4-m from a stationary start (i.e. from 0-m to 4-m) was measured manually using a stopwatch and automatically via the timing gates at 0-m and 4-m. Time taken to walk 4-m with a dynamic start was measured during the same trial by recording the time to walk between the timing gates at 2-m and 6-m (i.e. after 2-m acceleration).ResultsTesters differed for UGS measured using manual vs. automated timing (p = 0.02), with five and two testers recording slower and faster UGS using manual timing, respectively. 95% limits of agreement for trial 1 vs. 2, manual vs. automated timing, and dynamic vs. stationary start ranged from ±0.15 m/s to ±0.20 m/s, coinciding with the range for a clinically meaningful change. Limits of agreement for FGS were larger ranging from ±0.26 m/s to ±0.35 m/s.SignificanceRepeat testing of UGS should performed by the same tester or using an automated timing method to control for tester effects. Test protocol should remain constant both between and within participants as protocol deviations may result in detection of an artificial clinically meaningful change.