Proposed minimal standards for the description of genera, species and subspecies of the Pasteurellaceae

Principles and guidelines are presented to ensure a solid scientific standard of papers dealing with the taxonomy of taxa of Pasteurellaceae Pohl 1981. The classification of the Pasteurellaceae is in principle based on a polyphasic approach. DNA sequencing of certain genes is very important for defining the borders of a taxon. However, the characteristics that are common to all members of the taxon and which might be helpful for separating it from related taxa must also be identified. Descriptions have to be based on as many strains as possible (inclusion of at least five strains is highly desirable), representing different sources with respect to geography and ecology, to allow proper characterization both phenotypically and genotypically, to establish the extent of diversity of the cluster to be named. A genus must be monophyletic based on 16S rRNA gene sequence-based phylogenetic analysis. Only in very rare cases is it acceptable that monophyly can not be achieved by 16S rRNA gene sequence comparison. Recently, the monophyly of genera has been confirmed by sequence comparison of housekeeping genes. In principle, a new genus should be recognized by a distinct phenotype, and characters that separate the new genus from its neighbours should be given clearly. Due to the overall importance of accurate classification of species, at least two genotypic methods are needed to show coherence and for separation at the species level. The main criterion for the classification of a novel species is that it forms a monophyletic group based on 16S rRNA gene sequence-based phylogenetic analysis. However, some groups might also include closely related species. In these cases, more sensitive tools for genetic recognition of species should be applied, such as DNA-DNA hybridizations. The comparison of housekeeping gene sequences has recently been used for genotypic definition of species. In order to separate species, phenotypic characters must also be identified to recognize them, and at least two phenotypic differences from existing species should be identified if possible. We recommend the use of the subspecies category only for subgroups associated with disease or similar biological characteristics. At the subspecies level, the genotypic groups must always be nested within the boundaries of an existing species. Phenotypic cohesion must be documented at the subspecies level and separation between subspecies and related species must be fully documented, as well as association with particular disease and host. An overview of methods previously used to characterize isolates of the Pasteurellaceae has been given. Genotypic and phenotypic methods are separated in relation to tests for investigating diversity and cohesion and to separate taxa at the level of genus as well as species and subspecies.

A call for uniform reporting standards in studies assessing endovascular treatment for chronic ischaemia of lower limb arteries

Endovascular therapy is a rapidly evolving field for the treatment of patients with peripheral arterial disease, and a magnitude of studies reporting on various modern revascularization concepts have been recently published. Thus, studies assessing the efficacy of endovascular therapy of peripheral arteries do not operate with uniformly defined endpoints, rendering a direct comparison of studies difficult. The purpose of this consensus statement is to highlight differences in the terminology used in the current literature and to propose some standardized criteria that must be considered when reporting results of endovascular revascularization for chronic ischaemia of lower limb arteries.

Peripheral endovascular revascularization trials: high noon for uniform reporting standards

In the era of evidence based medicine, proof of clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness need to be firmly based on transparent comparisons between various therapeutic alternatives. Standards for reports are a prerequisite for comparisons across reports and should reflect the patient's perspective. According standards have been successfully introduced in many fields of modern medicine, but not yet for peripheral endovascular interventions. Given the overwhelmingly increasing importance of endovascular revascularization in patients with chronic lower limb ischemia, this report provides an updated outline of the heterogeneity of current reporting practice and highlights the need for uniform reporting standards.

Preventive effect of ozone on the development of white spot lesions during multibracket appliance therapy

OBJECTIVE: To test the null hypotheses: (1) there is no difference in the caries protective effect of ozone and Cervitec/Fluor Protector during multibracket (MB) appliance therapy, and (2) DIAGNOdent and quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) are not superior to a visual evaluation of initial caries lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty right-handed patients with a very poor oral hygiene who required full MB appliance therapy were analyzed during 26 months. In a split-mouth-design, the four quadrants of each patient were either treated with ozone, a combination of Cervitec and Fluor Protector, or served as untreated controls. The visible plaque index (VPI) and white spot formation were analyzed clinically. DIAGNOdent and QLF were used for a quantitative assessment of white spot formation. RESULTS: The average VPI in all four dental arch quadrants amounted to 55.6% and was independent of the preventive measure undertaken. In the quadrants treated with Cervitec/Fluor Protector, only 0.7% of the areas developed new, clinically visible white spots. This was significantly (P < .05) less than in the quadrants treated with ozone (3.2%). The lesions detected with QLF only partially corresponded to the clinically detected white spots, while DIAGNOdent proved to be unable to detect any changes at all. CONCLUSIONS: The caries protective effect of Cervitec/Fluor Protector during MB therapy was superior to ozone, and a visual evaluation of initial caries lesions was superior to both DIAGNOdent and QLF.