Death Caused by Cardioinhibitory Reflex: What Experts Believe.

The danger of neck compression without restriction of the arterial flow remains unresolved in forensic medicine. There is an ongoing debate concerning life endangerment due to the cardioinhibitory reflex. The aim of this study was to determine what forensic medical experts believe and how they deal with this reflex. An anonymous electronic questionnaire was sent to 1429 forensic medical experts all over the world. We asked them about their opinion on the cardioinhibitory reflex, its role in causing death, and what their diagnostic criteria were.A total of 182 questionnaires were returned. The experts who answered were from 32 different countries. Our survey showed that 80.2% of experts believe that the cardioinhibitory reflex can theoretically cause death. In the practical application opinions diverge though. Apparently, the practical application mainly depends on the habit of the individual expert. We observed no consensus on the diagnostic criteria to be used. Given the potentially frequent use of the concept of the cardioinhibitory reflex in forensic practice and its judicial impact it would be important to reach a consensus.

Communication skills training in oncology: a position paper based on a consensus meeting among European experts in 2009.

BACKGROUND: Communication in cancer care has become a major topic of interest. Since there is evidence that ineffective communication affects both patients and oncology clinicians (physicians and nurses), so-called communication skills trainings (CSTs) have been developed over the last decade. While these trainings have been demonstrated to be effective, there is an important heterogeneity with regard to implementation and with regard to evidence of different aspects of CST. METHODS: In order to review and discuss the scientific literature on CST in oncology and to formulate recommendations, the Swiss Cancer League has organised a consensus meeting with European opinion leaders and experts in the field of CST, as well as oncology clinicians, representatives of oncology societies and patient organisations. On the basis of a systematic review and a meta-analysis, recommendations have been developed and agreed upon. RESULTS: Recommendations address (i) the setting, objectives and participants of CST, (ii) its content and pedagogic tools, (iii) organisational aspects, (iv) outcome and (v) future directions and research. CONCLUSION: This consensus meeting, on the basis of European expert opinions and a systematic review and meta-analysis, defines key elements for the current provision and future development and evaluation of CST in oncology.

Hindsight judgement on ambiguous episodes of suspected infection in critically ill children: poor consensus amongst experts?

Few episodes of suspected infection observed in paediatric intensive care are classifiable without ambiguity by a priori defined criteria. Most require additional expert judgement. Recently, we observed a high variability in antibiotic prescription rates, not explained by the patients' clinical data or underlying diseases. We hypothesised that the disagreement of experts in adjudication of episodes of suspected infection could be one of the potential causes for this variability. During a 5-month period, we included all patients of a 19-bed multidisciplinary, tertiary, neonatal and paediatric intensive care unit, in whom infection was clinically suspected and antibiotics were prescribed ( n=183). Three experts (two senior ICU physicians and a specialist in infectious diseases) were provided with all patient data, laboratory and microbiological findings. All experts classified episodes according to a priori defined criteria into: proven sepsis, probable sepsis (negative cultures), localised infection and no infection. Episodes of proven viral infection and incomplete data sets were excluded. Of the remaining 167 episodes, 48 were classifiable by a priori criteria ( n=28 proven sepsis, n= 20 no infection). The three experts only achieved limited agreement beyond chance in the remaining 119 episodes (kappa = 0.32, and kappa = 0.19 amongst the ICU physicians). The kappa is a measure of the degree of agreement beyond what would be expected by chance alone, with 0 indicating the chance result and 1 indicating perfect agreement. CONCLUSION: agreement of specialists in hindsight adjudication of episodes of suspected infection is of questionable reliability.

"Pas vraiment, votre honneur...": vadémécum de la communication entre experts forensiques et magistrats

La présente communication a pour objet la communication entre experts forensiques et magistrats. En confrontant les notions juridiques d'expertise (notamment en regard du nouveau Code de procédure pénale), d'expert judiciaire aux pratiques habituellement admises dans le milieu forensique, elle met en lumière les décalages existant entre les attentes des juristes et les réponses que peuvent apporter les experts aux questions d'expertise qui leur sont posées. La contribution se conclura par quelques brèves recommandations pouvant constituer les prémisses d'un vadémécum de la communication destiné tant aux experts qu'aux magistrats.

Acceptance of inflammatory bowel disease treatment recommendations based on appropriateness ratings : do practicing gastroenterologists agree with experts?

BACKGROUND: Appropriateness criteria for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) have been developed by experts' panels. Little is known about the acceptance of such recommendations by care providers. The aim was to explore how treatment decisions of practicing gastroenterologists differ from experts using a vignette case study and a focus group. METHODS: Seventeen clinical vignettes were drawn from clinical indications evaluated by the expert panel. A vignette case questionnaire asking for treatment options in 9-10 clinical situations was submitted to 26 practicing gastroenterologists. For each vignette case, practitioners' answers on treatments deemed appropriate were compared to panel decisions. Qualitative analysis was made based on focus group discussion to explore acceptance and divergence reasons. RESULTS: 239 clinical vignettes were completed, 98 for CD and 141 for UC. Divergence between proposed treatments and results from panels was more frequent for CD (34%) than for UC (27%). Among UC clinical vignettes, the main divergences with the panel were linked to 5-ASA failure assessment and to situations where stopping treatment was the main decision. For CD, the care provider propositions diverged with the panel in mild-to-moderate active disease, where practitioners were more prone to an accelerated step up than the panel's recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: In about one third of vignettes cases, IBD treatment propositions made by practicing gastroenterologists diverged as compared to expert recommendations. Practicing gastroenterologists may experience difficulties in applying recommendations in daily practice.

Cross validation of experts versus registration methods for target localization in deep brain stimulation.

In the last five years, Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) has become the most popular and effective surgical technique for the treatent of Parkinson's disease (PD). The Subthalamic Nucleus (STN) is the usual target involved when applying DBS. Unfortunately, the STN is in general not visible in common medical imaging modalities. Therefore, atlas-based segmentation is commonly considered to locate it in the images. In this paper, we propose a scheme that allows both, to perform a comparison between different registration algorithms and to evaluate their ability to locate the STN automatically. Using this scheme we can evaluate the expert variability against the error of the algorithms and we demonstrate that automatic STN location is possible and as accurate as the methods currently used.

Processes models, environmental analyses, and cognitive architectures: Quo vadis quantum probability theory? (Commentary on Pothos and Busemeyer)

A lot of research in cognition and decision making suffers from a lack of formalism. The quantum probability program could help to improve this situation, but we wonder whether it would provide even more added value if its presumed focus on outcome models were complemented by process models that are, ideally, informed by ecological analyses and integrated into cognitive architectures.