scholarly journals Comment on ‘Cutaneous innervation of the hand: clinical testing in volunteers shows high intra- and inter-individual variability’ (Br J Anaesth 2018; 120: 836–45)

2020 ◽  
Vol 124 (2) ◽  
pp. e24-e26
Author(s):  
Sheng-Hao Cheng ◽  
Min Cheol Chang ◽  
Mathieu Boudier-Revéret ◽  
Ming-Yen Hsiao
2018 ◽  
Vol 120 (4) ◽  
pp. 836-845 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Keplinger ◽  
P. Marhofer ◽  
B. Moriggl ◽  
M. Zeitlinger ◽  
S. Muehleder-Matterey ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily F. Wissel ◽  
Leigh K. Smith

Abstract The target article suggests inter-individual variability is a weakness of microbiota-gut-brain (MGB) research, but we discuss why it is actually a strength. We comment on how accounting for individual differences can help researchers systematically understand the observed variance in microbiota composition, interpret null findings, and potentially improve the efficacy of therapeutic treatments in future clinical microbiome research.


2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Craig Uejo ◽  
Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach ◽  
Christopher R. Brigham

Abstract Evaluators who use the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, should understand the significant changes that have occurred (as well as the Clarifications and Corrections) in impairment ratings for disorders of the cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, and pelvis. The new methodology is an expansion of the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) method used in the fifth edition, but the criteria for defining impairment are revised, and the impairment value within a class is refined by information related to functional status, physical examination findings, and the results of clinical testing. Because current medical evidence does not support range-of-motion (ROM) measurements of the spine as a reliable indicator of specific pathology or permanent functional status, ROM is no longer used as a basis for defining impairment. The DRE method should standardize and simplify the rating process, improve validity, and provide a more uniform methodology. Table 1 shows examples of spinal injury impairment rating (according to region of the spine and category, with comments about the diagnosis and the resulting class assignment); Table 2 shows examples of spine impairment by region of the spine, class, diagnosis, and associated whole person impairment ratings form the sixth and fifth editions of the AMA Guides.


2011 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 256-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Matthys ◽  
Pieter van ‘t Veer ◽  
Lisette de Groot ◽  
Lee Hooper ◽  
Adriënne E.J.M. Cavelaars ◽  
...  

In Europe, micronutrient dietary reference values have been established by (inter)national committees of experts and are used by public health policy decision-makers to monitor and assess the adequacy of diets within population groups. The approaches used to derive dietary reference values (including average requirements) vary considerably across countries, and so far no evidence-based reason has been identified for this variation. Nutrient requirements are traditionally based on the minimum amount of a nutrient needed by an individual to avoid deficiency, and is defined by the body’s physiological needs. Alternatively the requirement can be defined as the intake at which health is optimal, including the prevention of chronic diet-related diseases. Both approaches are confronted with many challenges (e. g., bioavailability, inter and intra-individual variability). EURRECA has derived a transparent approach for the quantitative integration of evidence on Intake-Status-Health associations and/or Factorial approach (including bioavailability) estimates. To facilitate the derivation of dietary reference values, EURopean micronutrient RECommendations Aligned (EURRECA) is developing a process flow chart to guide nutrient requirement-setting bodies through the process of setting dietary reference values, which aims to facilitate the scientific alignment of deriving these values.


2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (7) ◽  
pp. 811-823
Author(s):  
Evgeniya Yu. Privodnova ◽  
Helena R. Slobodskaya ◽  
Andrey V. Bocharov ◽  
Alexander E. Saprigyn ◽  
Gennady G. Knyazev

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
D Usta ◽  
F Selt ◽  
J Hohloch ◽  
S Pusch ◽  
SM Pfister ◽  
...  

1986 ◽  
Vol 56 (03) ◽  
pp. 371-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peretz Weiss ◽  
Hillel Halkin ◽  
Shlomo Almog

SummaryWithin-individual variation over time in the clearance (Cl) and effect (PT%) of warfarin, was measured in 25 inpatients (group I) studied after standard single or individualized split loading doses and 1-3 times (n = 16) 8-16 weeks later during maintenance. Mean Cl (2.5 α 0.9 ml/min) was similar in both phases but significant changes occurred in 6/16 patients, exceeding those expected from within-individual variation alone (defined by its 95% tolerance limits -24% to +62%). Initial PT% (21 α 5) was unaffected by dosing schedule, total or free plasma warfarin, varying between patients by only 18-24%. Mean initial and maintenance dose-PT% ratios (8.2 mg/d: 21% and 4.1 mg/d: 40%) were similar but significant changes in sensitivity to warfarin occurred in 4/16 patients. In group I and 64 other outpatients on maintenance therapy, between-individual variability was 36-52% for Cl and 49-56% for effect. PT% correlated best (r = 0.56) with free and total plasma warfarin but poorly with dose (r = 0.29), with only 30% of PT% variance explained at best, due to high between patient variability.Warfarin dose prediction whether based on extrapolation from initial effects to the maintenance phase, or on iterative methods not allowing for between- or within-patient variation in warfarin clearance or effect which may occur independently over time, have not improved on empirical therapy. This, due to the elements of biological variability as well as the intricacy of the warfarin - prothrombin complex interaction not captured by any kinetic-dynamic model used for prediction to date.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document