Diagnostic and ethical challenges in disorders of consciousness and locked-in syndrome: a survey of German neurologists.

Diagnosis and decisions on life-sustaining treatment (LST) in disorders of consciousness, such as the vegetative state (VS) and the minimally conscious state (MCS), are challenging for neurologists. The locked-in syndrome (LiS) is sometimes confounded with these disorders by less experienced physicians. We aimed to investigate (1) the application of diagnostic knowledge, (2) attitudes concerning limitations of LST, and (3) further challenging aspects in the care of patients. A vignette-based online survey with a randomized presentation of a VS, MCS, or LiS case scenario was conducted among members of the German Society for Neurology. A sample of 503 neurologists participated (response rate 16.4%). An accurate diagnosis was given by 86% of the participants. The LiS case was diagnosed more accurately (94%) than the VS case (79%) and the MCS case (87%, p < 0.001). Limiting LST for the patient was considered by 92, 91, and 84% of the participants who accurately diagnosed the VS, LiS, and MCS case (p = 0.09). Overall, most participants agreed with limiting cardiopulmonary resuscitation; a minority considered limiting artificial nutrition and hydration. Neurologists regarded the estimation of the prognosis and determination of the patients' wishes as most challenging. The majority of German neurologists accurately applied the diagnostic categories VS, MCS, and LiS to case vignettes. Their attitudes were mostly in favor of limiting life-sustaining treatment and slightly differed for MCS as compared to VS and LiS. Attitudes toward LST strongly differed according to circumstances (e.g., patient's will opposed treatment) and treatment measures.

Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, internal consistency and validation of the Spinal Function Sort (SFS) for French- and German-speaking patients with back complaints.

Introduction Functional subjective evaluation through questionnaire is fundamental, but not often realized in patients with back complaints, lacking validated tools. The Spinal Function Sort (SFS) was only validated in English. We aimed to translate, adapt and validate the French (SFS-F) and German (SFS-G) versions of the SFS. Methods Three hundred and forty-four patients, experiencing various back complaints, were recruited in a French (n = 87) and a German-speaking (n = 257) center. Construct validity was estimated via correlations with SF-36 physical and mental scales, pain intensity and hospital anxiety and depression scales (HADS). Scale homogeneities were assessed by Cronbach's α. Test-retest reliability was assessed on 65 additional patients using intraclass correlation (IC). Results For the French and German translations, respectively, α were 0.98 and 0.98; IC 0.98 (95% CI: [0.97; 1.00]) and 0.94 (0.90; 0.98). Correlations with physical functioning were 0.63 (0.48; 0.74) and 0.67 (0.59; 0.73); with physical summary 0.60 (0.44; 0.72) and 0.52 (0.43; 0.61); with pain -0.33 (-0.51; -0.13) and -0.51 (-0.60; -0.42); with mental health -0.08 (-0.29; 0.14) and 0.25 (0.13; 0.36); with mental summary 0.01 (-0.21; 0.23) and 0.28 (0.16; 0.39); with depression -0.26 (-0.45; -0.05) and -0.42 (-0.52; -0.32); with anxiety -0.17 (-0.37; -0.04) and -0.45 (-0.54; -0.35). Conclusions Reliability was excellent for both languages. Convergent validity was good with SF-36 physical scales, moderate with VAS pain. Divergent validity was low with SF-36 mental scales in both translated versions and with HADS for the SFS-F (moderate in SFS-G). Both versions seem to be valid and reliable for evaluating perceived functional capacity in patients with back complaints.

Social evolution: war of the worms.

The discovery of a non-reproductive soldier caste in a clonally reproducing trematode greatly extends the taxonomic distribution of eusociality and reaffirms the importance of relatedness in the evolution of reproductive altruism.

War and the evolution of belligerence and bravery.

Tribal war occurs when a coalition of individuals use force to seize reproduction-enhancing resources, and it may have affected human evolution. Here, we develop a population-genetic model for the coevolution of costly male belligerence and bravery when war occurs between groups of individuals in a spatially subdivided population. Belligerence is assumed to increase an actor's group probability of trying to conquer another group. An actor's bravery is assumed to increase his group's ability to conquer an attacked group. We show that the selective pressure on these two traits can be substantial even in groups of large size, and that they may be driven by two independent reproduction-enhancing resources: additional mates for males and additional territory (or material resources) for females. This has consequences for our understanding of the evolution of intertribal interactions, as hunter-gatherer societies are well known to have frequently raided neighbouring groups from whom they appropriated territory, goods and women.

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Spinal Function Sort (SFS) for French- and German-Speaking Patients with Back Complaints

Aim: Functional subjective evaluation through questionnaire is fundamental, but not often realized in patients with back complaints, notably because of lack of validated tools, in accordance with recognized psychometric criteria. The Spinal Function Sort (SFS), developed according to actual standards, was only validated in English. The aim of this study is to translate, adapt and validate the French and German version of the SFS.Method and material: The translation and cross-cultural adaptation were performed following the methodology proposed by the American Association of Orthopedist Surgeon. A total of 344 patients, presenting varied back complaints (especially degenerative and traumatic), took part in this study in a tertiary French- (n=87; mean age 44y; 17 women) and German-speaking (n=257; mean age 41y; 53 women) center. Test-retest reliability was quantified using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and construct validity was assessed by estimating the Pearson's correlation with the SF-36 physical and mental scales, the Visual Analogue Scale for Pain Intensity (VAS), and subscales of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).Results: Respectively for the French and German version, ICC were 0.98 and 0.94. Correlations 0.63 and 0.67 with the SF-36 Physical Functioning subscale; 0.60 and 0.52 with the SF-36 Physical Summary Scale ; -0.33 and -0.51 with the VAS ; -0.08 and 0.25 with the SF-36 Mental Health scale; 0.01 and 0.28 with the SF-36 Mental Summary Scale; -0.26 and -0.42 with the HADS depression; -0.17 and -0.45 with the HADS anxiety.Discussion: For both the French and German version of the SFS, the reliability was excellent. Convergent construct validity with SF-36 physical scales is good, moderated with the VAS. We find out a low correlation with SF-36 mental scales (divergent construct validity). We find out a low correlation with HADS subscales in the French version, and a moderate one in the German version. Selection bias, chronicity of the complaints, as well as cultural differences could explain these results. In conclusion, both the French and German version of the SFS are valid and reliable for evaluation of perceived functional capacity for patients with back complaints.