Reproducibility (test–retest) of vestibular evoked myogenic potential

IntroductionThere is still no consensus in the literature as to the best acoustic stimulus for capturing vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP). Low-frequency tone bursts are generally more effective than high-frequency, but recent studies still use clicks. Reproducibility is an important analytical parameter to observe the reliability of responses.ObjectiveTo determine the reproducibility of p13 and n23 latency and amplitude of the VEMP for stimuli with different tone-burst frequencies, and to define the best test frequency.MethodsCross-sectional cohort study. VEMP was captured in 156 ears, on the sternocleidomastoid muscle, using 100 tone-burst stimuli at frequencies of 250, 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz, and sound intensity of 95 dB nHL. Responses were replicated, that is, recorded three times on each side.ResultsNo significant difference was observed for p13 and n23 latencies of the VEMP, captured at three moments with tone-burst stimuli at 250, 500, and 1000 Hz. Only the frequency of 2000 Hz showed a difference between captures of this potential (p < 0.001). p13 and n23 amplitude analysis was also similar in the test–retest for all frequencies analyzed.Conclusionp13 and n23 latencies and amplitudes of VEMP for tone-burst stimuli at frequencies of 250, 500, and 1000 Hz are reproducible.     

学龄期近视进展儿童调节功能的客观检查和分析

目的　对学龄期近视进展儿童进行调节功能的客观检查与分析，观察调节功能与近视进展之间的相关性。方法　选取2017年至2018年在首都医科大学附属北京同仁医院视光学门诊定期就诊的71名学龄期儿童为研究对象，根据受试者近年的屈光度进展速度，按≤0.50 D·a^-1、>0.50~1.00 D·a^-1、>1.00~1.50 D·a^-1、>1.50 D·a^-1分为4组，使用人眼调节分析仪对受试者进行调节功能的客观测量与分析，记录不同调节刺激视标下4组的客观调节反应值和客观调节微波动值，并作对比。结果　在所有调节视标上，各组随着调节刺激幅度增加，客观调节反应值也逐渐增加，4组在不同调节刺激视标下的客观调节反应值及平均的客观调节反应值差异均无统计学意义（均为P＞0.05）。≤0.50 D·a^-1、>0.50~1.00 D·a^-1、>1.00~1.50 D·a^-1、>1.50 D·a^-1近视进展速度组调节微波动值分别为（62.2±5.6）D、（62.5±5.3）D、（66.5±6.0）D和（58.0±6.5）D，4组间差异有统计学意义（F=6.424，P=0.001），在+0.50~-0.50 D、-2.00 D调节刺激视标下，4组的客观调节微波动值比较差异均有统计学意义（均为P＜0.05），在其余调节刺激视标下差异均无统计学意义（均为P＞0.05）。结论　对于学龄期儿童的近视进展速度，客观调节微波动值相对于客观调节反应值可能是一个更为敏感的相关指标。     

Vestibular Function Measurement Devices

Vestibular function laboratories utilize a multitude of diagnostic instruments to evaluate a dizzy patient. Caloric irrigators, oculomotor stimuli, and rotational chairs produce a stimulus whose accuracy is required for the patient response to be accurate. Careful attention to everything from cleanliness of equipment to threshold adjustments determine on a daily basis if patient data are going to be correct and useful. Instrumentation specifications that change with time such as speed and temperature must periodically be checked using calibrated instruments.     

国内外护理学本科生毕业考核现状与分析

教育测量与评价对实现教育目标具有重要作用。科学的教育评价既促进学生学习,又为教育决策提供依据,以实现持续质量改进。"健康中国2030"的整体目标、医学科学的发展及人民的健康需求,对新时代护理人才的培养提出了更高、更具体的要求。高等护理院校应以国家和社会对护理人才需求、院校培养目标为导向,以测量理论为基础,制定完善的学业评定标准,科学地开展毕业考核,保证人才"出口"质量。毕业考核作为终结性评价,测试内容在评价质量中起核心作用,应符合国家护理学专业培养标准,并与院校培养目标、课程目标契合。院校应关注护理本科生毕业考核质量,在保障测试信度的同时,做到实施公平、评价适当、标准一致,以确保测试的效度。教育管理部门及各院校应优化评价体系,加强对护理本科生毕业管理,在充分开展系统调查与分析的基础上,基于胜任力导向和结果导向,建立综合性评价体系,在教学过程中进行全方位反馈评价管理。文章结合国内外护理学专业本科生毕业考核的现状,从考核目的、内容、方式、评价主体、质量控制等方面进行综述与分析,为我国加强护理学本科教育,完善护理学专业本科生毕业评价体系建设提供借鉴。     

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.