Cough hypersensitivity syndrome is an important clinical concept:a pro/con debate

The major etiologies of chronic cough are generally accepted to consist of upper airway cough syndrome (formerly postnasal drip syndrome), eosinophilic airway inflammation (asthma, nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, only a small percentage of patients with these very common conditions suffers from chronic cough. Furthermore, acute cough due to viral upper respiratory tract infection (URI) is almost always a transient, self-limited condition, yet in a small subgroup of patients, URI heralds the onset of chronic, refractory cough. The cough hypersensitivity syndrome has been proposed to explain the occurrence of chronic cough in a subgroup of patients exposed to the same putative triggers as the vast majority of the population in whom chronic cough does not result. Although conceptually the cough hypersensitivity syndrome may be intellectually satisfying, differences of opinion remain as to whether this newly recognized entity is of clinical significance, i.e., useful for the treatment of patients suffering from chronic cough. The Third American Cough Conference, held in New York in June 2011, provided an ideal forum for the debate of this issue between two internationally recognized authorities in the field of cough.

Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate:Implications for mixed-methods research

Health care research includes many studies that combine quantitative and qualitative methods. In this paper, we revisit the quantitative-qualitative debate and review the arguments for and against using mixed-methods. In addition, we discuss the implications stemming from our view, that the paradigms upon which the methods are based have a different view of reality and therefore a different view of the phenomenon under study. Because the two paradigms do not study the same phenomena, quantitative and qualitative methods cannot be combined for cross-validation or triangulation purposes. However, they can be combined for complementary purposes. Future standards for mixed-methods research should clearly reflect this recommendation.

The Continuing Debate on Deep Molluscan Phylogeny: Evidence for Serialia (Mollusca, Monoplacophora + Polyplacophora)

Molluscs are a diverse animal phylum with a formidable fossil record. Although there is little doubt about the monophyly of the eight extant classes, relationships between these groups are controversial.We analysed a comprehensive multilocus molecular data set for molluscs, the first to include multiple species from all classes, including five monoplacophorans in both extant families. Our analyses of fivemarkers resolve two major clades: the first includes gastropods and bivalves sister to Serialia (monoplacophorans and chitons), and the second comprises scaphopods sister to aplacophorans and cephalopods. Traditional groupings such as Testaria, Aculifera, and Conchifera are rejected by our data with significant Approximately Unbiased (AU) test values. A new molecular clock indicates that molluscs had a terminal Precambrian origin with rapid divergence of all eight extant classes in the Cambrian. Therecovery of Serialia as a derived, Late Cambrian clade is potentially in line with the stratigraphic chronology of morphologically heterogeneous early mollusc fossils. Serialia is in conflict with traditional molluscan classifications and recent phylogenomic data. Yet our hypothesis, as others from molecular data, implies frequent molluscan shell and body transformations by heterochronic shifts in development and multiple convergent adaptations, leading to the variable shells and body plans in extant lineages.