Practical uses of contrast‐enhanced spectral mammography in daily work: A pictorial review

Contrast‐enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) has a number of uses including the work‐up of inconclusive findings on mammography, assessment of breast symptoms, cancer staging, evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and recently as an alternative to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in high‐risk screening. CESM can be swiftly incorporated into the workflow of busy breast clinics. We share our experiences with CESM at a large breast assessment centre in Western Australia.     

Epilepsie,Schlaf und plötzlicher unerwarteter Tod

Clinical Epileptology - Der plötzliche unerwartete Tod stellt eine seltene, aber schwerwiegende Komplikation für Epilepsiepatienten dar. Das Risiko hierfür ist u. a. nachts und...     

A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Contrast Baths

Study DesignSystematic review.IntroductionContrast baths are used as an intervention in hand therapy, yet it is unclear which patients, if any, benefit from this intervention.Purpose of the StudyTo examine the nature and quality of the evidence regarding the use of contrast baths using a systematic review process.MethodsOf a total of 28 clinical research articles on contrast baths, from 1938 forward, ten met the inclusion criteria set by the authors.ResultsThese studies addressed the physiological changes of hot and cold on blood flow, intramuscular temperature, subcutaneous temperature, and the influence of room temperature and age. The subjects included normal/healthy volunteers and patients with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, or foot/ankle injuries. The diversity of conditions, protocols, and outcomes limited the ability to make definitive conclusions on efficacy.ConclusionsThe contrast bath procedure may increase superficial blood flow and skin temperature, though the evidence on the impact on edema is conflicting. No relationship between physiologic effects and functional outcomes has been established.Level of Evidence: 2A     

Comparing histological data from different brains: Sources of error and strategies for minimizing them

The recent development of brain atlases with computer graphics templates, and of huge databases of neurohistochemical data on the internet, has forced a systematic re-examination of errors associated with comparing histological features between adjacent sections of the same brain, between brains treated in the same way, and between brains from groups treated in different ways. The long-term goal is to compare as accurately as possible a broad array of data from experimental brains within the framework of reference atlases. Main sources of error, each of which ideally should be measured and minimized, include intrinsic biological variation, linear and nonlinear distortion of histological sections, plane of section differences between each brain, section alignment problems, and sampling errors. These variables are discussed, along with approaches to error estimation and minimization in terms of a specific example—the distribution of neuroendocrine neurons in the rat paraventricular nucleus. Based on the strategy developed here, the main conclusion is that the best long-term solution is a high-resolution 3D computer graphics model of the brain that can be sliced in any plane and used as the framework for quantitative neuroanatomy, databases, knowledge management systems, and structure–function modeling. However, any approach to the automatic annotation of neuroanatomical data—relating its spatial distribution to a reference atlas—should deal systematically with these sources of error, which reduce localization reliability.