A Paradigm Shift in Predoctoral Dental Curricula in Brazil: Evaluating the Process of Change

In 2002, the Brazilian Ministry of Education approved the official curricular guidelines for undergraduate courses in Brazil to be adopted by the nation's 188 dental schools. In 2005-06, the Brazilian Dental Education Association (BDEA) promoted workshops in forty-eight of the schools to verify the degree of transformation of the curriculum based on these guidelines. Among the areas analyzed were course philosophy (variables were v1: knowledge production based on the needs of the Brazilian Public Health System [BPHS]; v2: health determinants; and v3: postgraduate studies and permanent education); pedagogical skills (v4: curricular structure; v5: changes in pedagogic and didactic skills; and v6: course program orientation); and dental practice scenarios (v7: diversity of the scenarios for training/learning; v8: academic health care centers opened to the BPHS; and v9: participation of students in health care delivery for the population). The subjects consisted of faculty members (n=711), students (n=228), and employees (n=14). The results showed an incipient degree of curriculum transformation. The degree of innovation was statistically different depending on the type of university (public or private) for variables I, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Private schools reported a higher level of innovation than public institutions. Resistance to transforming the dental curriculum according to the official guidelines may be linked to an ideological conception that supports the private practice model, continues to have faculty members direct all classroom activities, and prevents students from developing an understanding of professional practice as targeted towards the oral health needs of all segments of society.

Current management practices for acromegaly: an international survey

To determine whether peer-reviewed consensus statements have changed clinical practice, we surveyed acromegaly care in specialist centers across the globe, and determined the degree of adherence to published consensus guidelines on acromegaly management. Sixty-five acromegaly experts who participated in the 7th Acromegaly Consensus Workshop in March 2009 responded. Results indicated that the most common referring sources for acromegaly patients were other endocrinologists (in 26% of centers), neurosurgeons (25%) and primary care physicians (21%). In sixty-nine percent of patients, biochemical diagnoses were made by evaluating results of a combination of growth hormone (GH) nadir/basal GH and elevated insulin like growth factor-I (IGF-I) levels. In both Europe and the USA, neurosurgery was the treatment of choice for GH-secreting microadenomas and for macroadenomas with compromised visual function. The most widely used criteria for neurosurgical outcome assessment were combined measurements of IGF-I and GH levels after oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) 3 months after surgery. Ninety-eight percent of respondents stated that primary treatment with somatostatin receptor ligands (SRLs) was indicated at least sometime during the management of acromegaly patients. In nearly all centers (96%), the use of pegvisomant monotherapy was restricted to patients who had failed to achieve biochemical control with SRL therapy. The observation that most centers followed consensus statement recommendations encourages the future utility of these workshops aimed to create uniform management standards for acromegaly.

Consensus Statement: Chromosomal Microarray Is a First-Tier Clinical Diagnostic Test for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities or Congenital Anomalies

Chromosomal microarray (CMA) is increasingly utilized for genetic testing of individuals with unexplained developmental delay/intellectual disability (DD/ID), autism spectrum disorders (ASD), or multiple congenital anomalies (MCA). Performing CMA and G-banded karyotyping on every patient substantially increases the total cost of genetic testing. The International Standard Cytogenomic Array (ISCA) Consortium held two international workshops and conducted a literature review of 33 studies, including 21,698 patients tested by CMA. We provide an evidence-based summary of clinical cytogenetic testing comparing CMA to G-banded karyotyping with respect to technical advantages and limitations, diagnostic yield for various types of chromosomal aberrations, and issues that affect test interpretation. CMA offers a much higher diagnostic yield (15%-20%) for genetic testing of individuals with unexplained DD/ID, ASD, or MCA than a G-banded karyotype (similar to 3%, excluding Down syndrome and other recognizable chromosomal syndromes), primarily because of its higher sensitivity for submicroscopic deletions and duplications. Truly balanced rearrangements and low-level mosaicism are generally not detectable by arrays, but these are relatively infrequent causes of abnormal phenotypes in this population (<1%). Available evidence strongly supports the use of CMA in place of G-banded karyotyping as the first-tier cytogenetic diagnostic test for patients with DD/ID, ASD, or MCA. G-banded karyotype analysis should be reserved for patients with obvious chromosomal syndromes (e.g., Down syndrome), a family history of chromosomal rearrangement, or a history of multiple miscarriages.