Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

Inbreeding uncovers fundamental differences in the genetic load affecting male and female fertility in a butterfly

Inbreeding depression is most pronounced for traits closely associated with fitness. The traditional explanation is that natural selection eliminates deleterious mutations with additive or dominant effects more effectively than recessive mutations, leading to directional dominance for traits subject to strong directional selection. Here we report the unexpected finding that, in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana, male sterility contributes disproportionately to inbreeding depression for fitness (complete sterility in about half the sons from brother-sister matings), while female fertility is insensitive to inbreeding. The contrast between the sexes for functionally equivalent traits is inconsistent with standard selection arguments, and suggests that trait-specific developmental properties and cryptic selection play crucial roles in shaping genetic architecture. There is evidence that spermatogenesis is less developmentally stable than oogenesis, though the unusually high male fertility load in B. anynana additionally suggests the operation of complex selection maintaining male sterility recessives. Analysis of the precise causes of inbreeding depression will be needed to generate a model that reliably explains variation in directional dominance and reconciles the gap between observed and expected genetic loads carried by populations. This challenging evolutionary puzzle should stimulate work on the occurrence and causes of sex differences in fertility load.

Laterality as an indicator of emotional stress in ewes and lambs during a separation test

We assessed motor laterality in sheep to explore species-specific brain hemi-field dominance and how this could be affected by genetic or developmental factors. Further, we investigated whether directionality and strength of laterality could be linked to emotional stress in ewes and their lambs during partial separation. Forty-three ewes and their singleton lambs were scored on the (left/right) direction of turn in a y-maze to rejoin a conspecific (laterality test). Further, their behavioural response (i.e. time spent near the fence, vocalisations, and activity level) during forced separation by an open-mesh fence was assessed (separation test). Individual laterality was recorded for 44.2 % ewes (significant right bias) and 81.4 % lambs (equally biased to the left and the right). There was no significant association in side bias between dams and offspring. The Chi-squared test revealed a significant population bias for both groups (p < 0.05). Evolutionary adaptive strategies or stimuli-related visual laterality may provide explanation for this decision-making process. Absolute strength of laterality (irrespective of side) was high (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, dams: D = 0.2; p < 0.001; lambs: D = 0.36, p < 0.0001). The Wilcoxon test showed that lateralised lambs and dams spent significantly more time near each other during separation than non-lateralised animals (p < 0.05), and that lateralised dams were also more active than non-lateralised ones. Arguably, the lateralised animals showed a greater attraction to their pair because they were more disturbed and thus required greater reassurance. The data show that measures of laterality offer a potential novel non-invasive indicator of separation stress.

Evaluation of Restorative Dentistry Specialty Registrars’ Clinical Experience of Developmental Disorders: A Survey

Background

Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry (StRs) should be competent in the independent restorative management of patients with developmental disorders including hypodontia and cleft lip/palate upon completion of their specialist training.1 Knowledge and management may be assessed via the Intercollegiate Specialty Fellowship Examination (ISFE) in Restorative Dentistry.2

Objective

The aim of this study was to collate and compare data on the training and experience of StRs in the management of patients with developmental disorders across different training units within the British Isles.

Methods

Questionnaires were distributed to all StRs attending the Annual General Meeting of the Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry Group, Belfast, in October 2015. Participants were asked to rate their confidence and experience of assessing and planning treatment for patients with developmental disorders, construction of appropriate prostheses, and provision of dental implants. Respondents were also asked to record clinical supervision and didactic teaching at their unit, and to rate their confidence of passing a future ISFE station assessing knowledge of developmental disorders.

Results

Responses were obtained from 32 StRs (n=32) training within all five countries of the British Isles. The majority of respondents were based in England (72%) with three in Wales, and two in each of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland. Approximately one third of respondents (34%) were in the final years of training (years 4-6). Almost half of the StRs reported that they were not confident of independently assessing (44%) new patients with a developmental disorder, with larger numbers (72%) indicating a lack of confidence in treatment planning. Six respondents rated their experience of treating obturator patients as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’. The majority (56%) rated their experience of implant provision in these cases as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ with three-quarters (75%) rating clinical supervision at their unit as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’. Less than half (41%) rated the didactic teaching at their unit as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’, and only 8 StRs indicated that they were confident of passing an ISFE station focused on developmental disorders.

Conclusion

Experience and training regarding patients with developmental disorders is inconsistent for StRs across the British Isles with a number of trainees reporting a lack of clinical exposure.