Concise reviews: in vitro-produced pancreas organogenesis models in three dimensions: self-organization from few stem cells or progenitors.

Three-dimensional models of organ biogenesis have recently flourished. They promote a balance between stem/progenitor cell expansion and differentiation without the constraints of flat tissue culture vessels, allowing for autonomous self-organization of cells. Such models allow the formation of miniature organs in a dish and are emerging for the pancreas, starting from embryonic progenitors and adult cells. This review focuses on the currently available systems and how these allow new types of questions to be addressed. We discuss the expected advancements including their potential to study human pancreas development and function as well as to develop diabetes models and therapeutic cells.

Transformations in Deuteronomistic and Biblical Historiography. On "Book-Finding" and other Literary Strategies

L'a. cherche à dater l'historiographie deutéronomiste et à établir une transformation à l'intérieur de cette historiographie. Les écrits de propagande de l'époque de Josias (Rois, Deutéronome, Josué, Exode et Nombres) ont été changés après la catastrophe de 597/87 en récit historique prenant une distance et présentant la Tora prenant la relève de l'autorité perdue du Temple. L'A. peut ainsi pencher pour une rédaction de ce courant historiographique datant de l'époque post-éxilique.

Scientific value of systematic reviews: survey of editors of core clinical journals.

BACKGROUND: Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.¦METHODS: We identified the 118 journals labelled as "core clinical journals" by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals' editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.¦RESULTS: The editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as "Review" or "Feature article". Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.¦DISCUSSION: Currently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of 'original research' in the context of SRs is warranted.

Team Effectiveness in Patient Health Management: An Overview of Reviews

Background: The desire to improve the quality of health care for an aging population with multiple chronic diseases is fostering a rapid growth in inter-professional team care, supported by health professionals, governments, businesses and public institutions. However, the weight of evidence measuring the impact of team care on patient and health system outcomes has not, heretofore, been clear. To address this deficiency, we evaluated published evidence for the clinical effectiveness of team care within a chronic disease management context in a systematic overview. Methods: A search strategy was built for Medline using medical subject headings and other relevant keywords. After testing for perform- ance, the search strategy was adapted to other databases (Cinhal, Cochrane, Embase, PsychInfo) using their specific descriptors. The searches were limited to reviews published between 1996 and 2011, in English and French languages. The results were analyzed by the number of studies favouring team intervention, based on the direction of effect and statistical significance for all reported outcomes. Results: Sixteen systematic and 7 narrative reviews were included. Diseases most frequently targeted were depression, followed by heart failure, diabetes and mental disorders. Effective- ness outcome measures most commonly used were clinical endpoints, resource utilization (e.g., emergency room visits, hospital admissions), costs, quality of life and medication adherence. Briefly, while improved clinical and resource utilization endpoints were commonly reported as positive outcomes, mixed directional results were often found among costs, medication adherence, mortality and patient satisfaction outcomes. Conclusions: We conclude that, although suggestive of some specific benefits, the overall weight of evidence for team care efficacy remains equivocal. Further studies that examine the causal interactions between multidisciplinary team care and clinical and economic outcomes of disease management are needed to more accurately assess its net program efficacy and population effectiveness.