Association Study of 167 Candidate Genes for Schizophrenia Selected by a Multi-Domain Evidence-Based Prioritization Algorithm and Neurodevelopmental Hypothesis

Integrating evidence from multiple domains is useful in prioritizing disease candidate genes for subsequent testing. We ranked all known human genes (n = 3819) under linkage peaks in the Irish Study of High-Density Schizophrenia Families using three different evidence domains: 1) a meta-analysis of microarray gene expression results using the Stanley Brain collection, 2) a schizophrenia protein-protein interaction network, and 3) a systematic literature search. Each gene was assigned a domain-specific p-value and ranked after evaluating the evidence within each domain. For comparison to this
ranking process, a large-scale candidate gene hypothesis was also tested by including genes with Gene Ontology terms related to neurodevelopment. Subsequently, genotypes of 3725 SNPs in 167 genes from a custom Illumina iSelect array were used to evaluate the top ranked vs. hypothesis selected genes. Seventy-three genes were both highly ranked and involved in neurodevelopment (category 1) while 42 and 52 genes were exclusive to neurodevelopment (category 2) or highly ranked (category 3), respectively. The most significant associations were observed in genes PRKG1, PRKCE, and CNTN4 but no individual SNPs were significant after correction for multiple testing. Comparison of the approaches showed an excess of significant tests using the hypothesis-driven neurodevelopment category. Random selection of similar sized genes from two independent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of schizophrenia showed the excess was unlikely by chance. In a further meta-analysis of three GWAS datasets, four candidate SNPs reached nominal significance. Although gene ranking using integrated sources of prior information did not enrich for significant results in the current experiment, gene selection using an a priori hypothesis (neurodevelopment) was superior to random selection. As such, further development of gene ranking strategies using more carefully selected sources of information is warranted.

Lost in translation: Public policies, evidence-based practice, and Autism Spectrum Disorder

Prevalence rates of autism spectrum disorder have risen dramatically over the past few decades (now estimated at 1:50 children). The estimated total annual cost to the public purse in the United States is US$137 billion, with an individual lifetime cost in the United Kingdom estimated at between £0.8 million and £1.23 million depending on the level of functioning. The United Nations Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has enshrined full and equal human rights—for example, for inclusion, education and employment—and there is ample evidence that much can be achieved through adequate support and early intensive behavioural interventions. Not surprisingly, most governments worldwide have devised laws, policies, and strategies to improve services related to autism spectrum disorder, yet intriguingly the approaches differ considerably across the globe. Using Northern Ireland as a case in point, we look at relevant governmental documents and offer international comparisons that illustrate inconsistencies akin to a “postcode lottery” of services.

What Are the Effects of Teaching Evidence-Based Health Care (EBHC)? Overview of Systematic Reviews

Background

An evidence-based approach to health care is recognized internationally as a key competency for healthcare practitioners. This overview systematically evaluated and organized evidence from systematic reviews on teaching evidence-based health care (EBHC).

Methods/Findings

We searched for systematic reviews evaluating interventions for teaching EBHC to health professionals compared to no intervention or different strategies. Outcomes covered EBHC knowledge, skills, attitudes, practices and health outcomes. Comprehensive searches were conducted in April 2013. Two reviewers independently selected eligible reviews, extracted data and evaluated methodological quality. We included 16 systematic reviews, published between 1993 and 2013. There was considerable overlap across reviews. We found that 171 source studies included in the reviews related to 81 separate studies, of which 37 are in more than one review. Studies used various methodologies to evaluate educational interventions of varying content, format and duration in undergraduates, interns, residents and practicing health professionals. The evidence in the reviews showed that multifaceted, clinically integrated interventions, with assessment, led to improvements in knowledge, skills and attitudes. Interventions improved critical appraisal skills and integration of results into decisions, and improved knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour amongst practicing health professionals. Considering single interventions, EBHC knowledge and attitude were similar for lecture-based versus online teaching. Journal clubs appeared to increase clinical epidemiology and biostatistics knowledge and reading behavior, but not appraisal skills. EBHC courses improved appraisal skills and knowledge. Amongst practicing health professionals, interactive online courses with guided critical appraisal showed significant increase in knowledge and appraisal skills. A short workshop using problem-based approaches, compared to no intervention, increased knowledge but not appraisal skills.

Conclusions

EBHC teaching and learning strategies should focus on implementing multifaceted, clinically integrated approaches with assessment. Future rigorous research should evaluate minimum components for multifaceted interventions, assessment of medium to long-term outcomes, and implementation of these interventions.

Surgical strategies for coexisting glaucoma and cataract: an evidence-based update.

OBJECTIVE:

To assess short- and long-term control of intraocular pressure (IOP) with different surgical treatment strategies for coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

DESIGN:

Systematic literature review and analysis.

METHOD:

We performed a search of the published literature to identify all eligible articles pertaining to the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma in adults. One investigator abstracted the content of each article onto a custom-designed form. A second investigator corroborated the findings. The evidence supporting different approaches was graded by consensus as good, fair, weak, or insufficient.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

Short-term (24 hours or fewer) and long-term (more than 24 hours) IOP control.

RESULTS:

The evidence was good that long-term IOP is lowered more by combined glaucoma and cataract operations than by cataract operations alone. On average, the IOP was 3 to 4 mmHg lower in the combined groups with fewer medications required. The evidence was weak that extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) alone results in short-term increase in IOP and was insufficient to determine the short-term impact of phacoemulsification cataract extraction (PECE) on IOP in glaucoma patients. The evidence was weak that short-term IOP control was better with ECCE or PECE combined with an incisional glaucoma procedure compared with ECCE or PECE alone. The evidence was also weak (but consistent) that long-term IOP is lowered by 2 to 4 mmHg after ECCE or PECE. Finally, there was weak evidence that combined PECE and trabeculectomy produces slightly worse long-term IOP control than trabeculectomy alone, and there was fair evidence that the same is true for ECCE combined with trabeculectomy.

CONCLUSIONS:

There is strong evidence for better long-term control of IOP with combined glaucoma and cataract operations compared with cataract surgery alone. For other issues regarding surgical treatment strategies for cataract and glaucoma, the available evidence is limited or conflicting.

Post-trauma: Is evidence based practice a fantasy?

Trauma, bereavement, and loss are universal human experiences. Much has been written about the process that the bereaved go through following the loss of a loved one. Recent events such as 9/11, earthquakes in Turkey, genocides in Rwanda, community conflict in Northern Ireland, and the Asian Tsunami Disaster have drawn unprecedented public attention to the subject of traumatic bereavement. Increasingly, it is recognised that while most people are able to cope with loss generally by eventually restructuring their lives, those bereaved in traumatic circumstance often find it extremely difficult. As a consequence, a plethora of interventions have emerged, however, to-date, little is know about their actual effectiveness in helping the bereaved. With the emphasis of health and welfare professions on evidencebased practice (EBP) greater than ever and a raising awareness of accountability as key element of ethical practice, the call for EBP in traumatic bereavement is compelling. Using examples from work carried out in Northern Ireland, we look at the backdrop of the issues involved, describe some of the most commonly used therapeutic interventions, and explore the possibility of evidence-based practice.

The postmodernist war on evidence-based practice

In this paper, we examine the war of words between those who contend that health care practice, including nursing, should primarily be informed by research (the evidence-based practice movement), and those who argue that there should be no restrictions on the sources of knowledge used by practitioners (the postmodernists). We review the postmodernist interventions of Dave Holmes and his colleagues, observing that the postmodernist style to which they adhere, which includes the use of continental philosophy, metaphors, and acerbic delivery, tends to obscure their substantive arguments. The heated nature of some responses to them has tended to have the same effect. However, the substantive arguments are important. Five main postmodernist charges are identified and discussed. The first argument, that the notion of ‘best evidence’ implies a hierarchical and exclusivist approach to knowledge, is persuasive. However, the contention that this hierarchy is maintained by the combined pressures of capitalism and vested interests within academia and the health services, is less well founded. Nevertheless, postmodernist contentions that the hierarchy embraced by the evidence-based practice movement damages health care because it excludes other forms of evidence that are needed to understand the complexity of care, it marginalizes important aspects of clinical knowledge, and it fails to take account of individuals or their experience, are all seen to be of some merit. However, we do not share the postmodernist conclusion that this adds up to a fascist order. Instead, we characterize evidence-based practice as a necessary but not sufficient component of health care knowledge.