Inter-rater Reliability of Criteria-Based Content Analysis of Children's Statements of Abuse.

The evaluation of children's statements of sexual abuse cases in forensic cases is critically important and must and reliable. Criteria-based content analysis (CBCA) is the main component of the statement validity assessment (SVA), which is the most frequently used approach in this setting. This study investigated the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of CBCA in a forensic context. Three independent raters evaluated the transcripts of 95 statements of sexual abuse. IRR was calculated for each criterion, total score, and overall evaluation. The IRR was variable for the criteria, with several being unsatisfactory. But high IRR was found for the total CBCA scores (Kendall's W = 0.84) and for overall evaluation (Kendall's W = 0.65). Despite some shortcomings, SVA remains a robust method to be used in the comprehensive evaluation of children's statements of sexual abuse in the forensic setting. However, the low IRR of some CBCA criteria could justify some technical improvements.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of targeted anticancer therapy.

New oral targeted anticancer therapies are revolutionizing cancer treatment by transforming previously deadly malignancies into chronically manageable conditions. Nevertheless, drug resistance, persistence of cancer stem cells, and adverse drug effects still limit their ability to stabilize or cure malignant diseases in the long term. Response to targeted anticancer therapy is influenced by tumor genetics and by variability in drug concentrations. However, despite a significant inter-patient pharmacokinetic variability, targeted anticancer drugs are essentially licensed at fixed doses. Their therapeutic use could however be optimized by individualization of their dosage, based on blood concentration measurements via the therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). TDM can increase the probability of therapeutic responses to targeted anticancer therapies, and would help minimize the risk of major adverse reactions.

Practice variability and efficacy of clonazepam, lorazepam, and midazolam in status epilepticus: A multicenter comparison.

OBJECTIVE: Benzodiazepines (BZD) are recommended as first-line treatment for status epilepticus (SE), with lorazepam (LZP) and midazolam (MDZ) being the most widely used drugs and part of current treatment guidelines. Clonazepam (CLZ) is also utilized in many countries; however, there is no systematic comparison of these agents for treatment of SE to date. METHODS: We identified all patients treated with CLZ, LZP, or MDZ as a first-line agent from a prospectively collected observational cohort of adult patients treated for SE in four tertiary care centers. Relative efficacies of CLZ, LZP, and MDZ were compared by assessing the risk of developing refractory SE and the number of antiseizure drugs (ASDs) required to control SE. RESULTS: Among 177 patients, 72 patients (40.62%) received CLZ, 82 patients (46.33%) LZP, and 23 (12.99%) MDZ; groups were similar in demographics and SE characteristics. Loading dose was considered insufficient in the majority of cases for LZP, with a similar rate (84%, 95%, and 87.5%) in the centers involved, and CLZ was used as recommended in 52% of patients. After adjustment for relevant variables, LZP was associated with an increased risk of refractoriness as compared to CLZ (odds ratio [OR] 6.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.66-15.5) and with an increased number of ASDs needed for SE control (OR 4.35, 95% CI 1.8-10.49). SIGNIFICANCE: CLZ seems to be an effective alternative to LZP and MDZ. LZP is frequently underdosed in this setting. These findings are highly relevant, since they may impact daily practice.