Orientation and mobility outcome measures

Despite orientation and mobility (O&M) being a significant factor determining quality of life of people with low vision or blindness, there are no gold standard measures or agreement on how to measure O&M performance. In the first part of this systematic review, an inventory of O&M outcome measures used by recent studies to assess the performance of orientation and/or mobility of adults with vision impairment (low vision and blindness) is presented. A wide variety of O&M outcome measures have been implemented in different fields of study, such as epidemiologic research and interventional studies evaluating training, assistive technology, vision rehabilitation and vision restoration. The most frequent aspect of outcome measures is efficiency such as time, distance, speed and percentage of preferred walking speed, followed by obstacle contacts and avoidance, and dis/orientation and veering. Other less commonly used aspects are target identification, safety and social interaction and self-reported outcome measures. Some studies employ sophisticated equipment to capture and analyse O&M performance in a laboratory setting, while others carry out their assessment in real-world indoor or outdoor environments. In the second part of this review, the appropriateness of implementing the identified outcome measures to assess O&M performance in clinical and functional O&M practice is evaluated. Nearly a half of these outcome measures meet all four criteria of face validity (either clinical or functional), responsiveness, reliability and feasibility and have the potential to be implemented in clinical or functional O&M practice. The findings of this review confirm the complicated and dynamic nature of O&M. Multiple measures are required in any evaluation of O&M performance to facilitate holistic assessment of O&M abilities and limitations of each individual.     

Noise characterization of “effective quiet” areas on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier

The purpose of this investigation was to characterize noise levels in spaces designated as “effective quiet” areas on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier. Noise dosimetry samples were collected in 15 designated spaces, representing 15 noise measurements, while at-sea during airwing carrier qualifications. Equivalent sound level (L_eq) measurements were collected during flight operations (L_{eq (flt ops)}), non-flight operations (L_{eq (non-flt ops)}), and over 24-hr periods (L_{eq (24-hr)}). These data were compared to the 70 dBA American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH^®) Threshold Limit Value (TLV^®) for “effective quiet” areas intended for temporary threshold shift recovery when personnel live and work in a potentially noise hazardous environment for periods greater than 24?hr. The monitored areas were selected based on personnel occupancy/use during off-duty time periods. Areas were classified by either (1) leisure areas that included mess (eating areas), gyms, lounges, an internet cafe, and the fantail social area or (2) berthing (sleeping) areas. The L_eq measurements in decibels “A” weighted (dBA) were compared to determine significant differences between L_{eq (flt ops)}, L_{eq (non-flt ops)}, and L_{eq (24-hr)} and were compared between leisure area and berthing area. Measured noise levels according to time period ranged as follows: (1) L_{eq (24-hr)}: 70.8–105.4 dBA; (2) L_{eq (flt ops)}: 70–101.2 dBA; and (3) L_{eq (non-flt ops)}: 39.4–104.6 dBA. All area measurements over the 24-hr period and during flight operations and 46.7% of the areas during the non-flight operation time period exceeded the “effective quiet” 70 dBA ACGIH TLV. Mean L_eqs were 15 dBA higher during flight operations compared to non-flight operations in “effective quiet” areas (p?=?0.001). The L_eqs in leisure areas were significantly higher than berthing areas by approximately 21 dBA during non-flight operation periods (p?=?0.001). Results suggest noise levels in “effective quiet” areas frequented by aircraft carrier personnel during off-duty hours when at-sea may inhibit auditory recovery from occupational noise exposures that occur on-duty.     

Endoscopic gastroplasty to treat medically uncontrolled obesity needs more quality data: A systematic review

Endoscopic gastroplasty (EG) has been used in clinical practice to treat obesity. This systematic review has the objective of assessing if there is an acceptable level of scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of EG. A thorough search strategy was used up to October 2018, including the 2 most common techniques: endoscopic suturing and the primary obesity surgery endolumenal procedure. The quality of the studies was evaluated through the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in Systematic Reviews—“Checklist for Case Series”—and summarized using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Only 1 randomized controlled trial (moderate GRADE evidence) was found, and the remaining were case reports or small case series (very low GRADE evidence). The literature has low scientific quality. All studies, with 1 exception, are small case series with short follow-up. One of the randomized controlled trials did not meet the primary endpoint for weight loss in both groups (EG × sham) after 1-year follow-up. The case series reported from 16% to 19% total weight loss, but few had more than 6 months of follow-up. Serious adverse events ranged from 2% to 10%. Based on current literature, there is not enough quality scientific evidence regarding long-term weight loss and the procedure’s safety to recommend the use of EG in current clinical practice.     

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.