Plant immunostimulants-Scientific paradigm or myth?

In traditional medicine, numerous plant preparations are used to treat inflammation both topically and systemically. Several anti-inflammatory plant extracts and a few natural product-based monosubstances have even found their way into the clinic. Unfortunately, a number of plant secondary metabolites have been shown to trigger detrimental pro-allergic immune reactions and are therefore considered to be toxic. In the phytotherapy research literature, numerous plants are also claimed to exert immunostimulatory effects. However, while the concepts of plant-derived anti-inflammatory agents and allergens are well established, the widespread notion of immunostimulatory plant natural products and their potential therapeutic use is rather obscure, often with the idea that the product is some sort of "tonic" for the immune system without actually specifying the mechanisms. In this commentary it is argued that the paradigm of oral plant immunostimulants lacks clinical evidence and may therefore be a myth, which has originated primarily from in vitro studies with plant extracts. The fact that no conclusive data on orally administered immunostimulants can be found in the scientific literature inevitably prompts us to challenge this paradigm.

Bringing results to fruition through publication: An analysis of a peer-reviewed, open access and context-focused journal's editorial practice

When it comes to helping to shape sustainable development, research is most useful when it bridges the science–implementation/management gap and when it brings development specialists and researchers into a dialogue (Hurni et al. 2004); can a peer-reviewed journal contribute to this aim? In the classical system for validation and dissemination of scientific knowledge, journals focus on knowledge exchange within the academic community and do not specifically address a ‘life-world audience’. Within a North-South context, another knowledge divide is added: the peer review process excludes a large proportion of scientists from the South from participating in the production of scientific knowledge (Karlsson et al. 2007). Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is a journal whose mission is based on an editorial strategy to build the bridge between research and development and ensure that authors from the global South have access to knowledge production, ultimately with a view to supporting sustainable development in mountains. In doing so, MRD faces a number of challenges that we would like to discuss with the td-net community, after having presented our experience and strategy as editors of this journal. MRD was launched in 1981 by mountain researchers who wanted mountains to be included in the 1992 Rio process. In the late 1990s, MRD realized that the journal needed to go beyond addressing only the scientific community. It therefore launched a new section addressing a broader audience in 2000, with the aim of disseminating insights into, and recommendations for, the implementation of sustainable development in mountains. In 2006, we conducted a survey among MRD’s authors, reviewers, and readers (Wymann et al. 2007): respondents confirmed that MRD had succeeded in bridging the gap between research and development. But we realized that MRD could become an even more efficient tool for sustainability if development knowledge were validated: in 2009, we began submitting ‘development’ papers (‘transformation knowledge’) to external peer review of a kind different from the scientific-only peer review (for ‘systems knowledge’). At the same time, the journal became open access in order to increase the permeability between science and society, and ensure greater access for readers and authors in the South. We are currently rethinking our review process for development papers, with a view to creating more space for communication between science and society, and enhancing the co-production of knowledge (Roux 2008). Hopefully, these efforts will also contribute to the urgent debate on the ‘publication culture’ needed in transdisciplinary research (Kueffer et al. 2007).

Peer Review Processes for Transdisciplinary Articles: A Reflection on Journal's Practices

Publishing is an essential means of validation and communication of research. This is no different in transdisciplinary research, where publishing also aims at contributing to the development of society through sharing of knowledge. In the scientific world, authors need to disseminate and validate results, reflect on issues, and participate in debates. On the other hand, institutions and individuals are assessed according to their publication record – as probably the most influential of all current evaluation criteria. Occupying the space between article production and counting impact factors, journal editors and reviewers play an important role in defining and using rules to assess and improve the work submitted to them. Publishing transdisciplinary research poses specific challenges, in particular with regard to peer-review processes, as it addresses different knowledge communities with different value systems and purposes.

Position paper on the management of patients with obstructive sleep apnea and hypertension: joint recommendations by the European Society of Hypertension, by the European Respiratory Society and by the members of European COST (COoperation in Scientific and Technological research) ACTION B26 on obstructive sleep apnea

This article is aimed at addressing the current state of the art in epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnostic procedures and treatment options for appropriate management of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in cardiovascular (particularly hypertensive) patients, as well as for the management of cardiovascular diseases (particularly arterial hypertension) in OSA patients. The present document is the result of the work done by a panel of experts participating in the European Union COST (COoperation in Scientific and Technological research) ACTION B26 on OSA, with the endorsement of the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the European Society of Hypertension (ESH). These recommendations are particularly aimed at reminding cardiovascular experts to consider the occurrence of sleep-related breathing disorders in patients with high blood pressure. They are at the same time aimed at reminding respiration experts to consider the occurrence of hypertension in patients with respiratory problems at night.

Guidance for the preparation of neurological management guidelines by EFNS scientific task forces - revised recommendations 2012

This paper is meant to provide guidance to anyone wishing to write a neurological guideline for diagnosis or treatment, and is directed at the Scientist Panels and task forces of the European Federation of Neurological Societies (EFNS). It substitutes the previous guidance paper from 2004. It contains several new aspects: the guidance is now based on a change of the grading system for evidence and for the resulting recommendations, and has adopted The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (GRADE). The process of grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations can now be improved and made more transparent. The task forces embarking on the development of a guideline must now make clearer and more transparent choices about outcomes considered most relevant when searching the literature and evaluating their findings. Thus, the outcomes chosen will be more critical, more patient-oriented and easier to translate into simple recommendations. This paper also provides updated practical recommendations for planning a guideline task force within the framework of the EFNS. Finally, this paper hopes to find the approval also by the relevant bodies of our future organization, the European Academy of Neurology.

Scientific assembly update: paediatrics in Vienna

The aim of this update is to describe, in the context of the current literature, major papers from the seven groups of the Paediatric Assembly (Respiratory Physiology; Asthma and Allergy; Cystic Fibrosis; Respiratory Infection and Immunology; Neonatology and Paediatric Intensive Care; Respiratory Epidemiology; and Bronchology) presented during the European Respiratory Society's annual meeting held in 2012 in Vienna, Austria.

Glucocorticosteroid-induced spinal osteoporosis: scientific update on pathophysiology and treatment

Glucocorticosteroid-induced spinal osteoporosis (GIOP) is the most frequent of all secondary types of osteoporosis. The understanding of the pathophysiology of glucocorticoid (GC) induced bone loss is of crucial importance for appropriate treatment and prevention of debilitating fractures that occur predominantly in the spine. GIOP results from depressed bone formation due to lower activity and higher death rate of osteoblasts on the one hand, and from increase bone resorption due to prolonged lifespan of osteoclasts on the other. In addition, calcium/phosphate metabolism may be disturbed through GC effects on gut, kidney, parathyroid glands and gonads. Therefore, therapeutic agents aim at restoring balanced bone cell activity by directly decreasing apoptosis rate of osteoblasts (e.g., cyclical parathyroid hormone) or by increasing apoptosis rate of osteoclasts (e.g., bisphosphonates). Other therapeutical efforts aim at maintaining/restoring calcium/phosphate homeostasis: improving intestinal calcium absorption (using calcium supplementation, vitamin D and derivates) and avoiding increased urinary calcium loss (using thiazides) prevent or counteract a secondary hyperparthyroidism. Bisphosphonates, particularly the aminobisphosphonates risedronate and alendronate, have been shown to protect patients on GCs from (further) bone loss to reduce vertebral fracture risk. Calcitonin may be of interest in situation where bisphosphonates are contraindicated or not applicable and in cases where acute pain due to vertebral fracture has to be manage. The intermittent administration of 1-34-parathormone may be an appealing treatment alternative, based on its documented anabolic effects on bone resulting from the reduction of osteoblastic apoptosis. Calcium and vitamin D should be a systematic adjunctive measure to any drug treatment for GIOP. Based on currently available evidence, fluoride, androgens, estrogens (opposed or unopposed) cannot be recommended for the prevention and treatment of GIOP. However, substitution of gonadal hormones may be indicated if GC-induced hypogonadism is present and leads to clinical symptoms. Data using the SERM raloxifene to treat or prevent GIOP are lacking, as are data using the promising bone anabolic agent strontium ranelate. Kyphoplasty performed in appropriately selected osteoporotic patients with painful vertebral fractures is a promising addition to current medical treatment.

Prosthetic treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence

The objective of this report is to summarize the results on survival and complication rates of different designs of fixed dental prostheses (FDP) published in a series of systematic reviews. Moreover, the various parameters for survival and risk assessment are to be used in attempt to perform treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence. Three electronic searches complemented by manual searching were conducted to identify prospective and retrospective cohort studies on FDP and implant-supported single crowns (SC) with a mean follow-up time of at least 5 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5- and 10-year survival proportions. Meta-analysis of the studies included indicated an estimated 5-year survival of conventional tooth-supported FDP of 93.8%, cantilever FDP of 91.4%, solely implant-supported FDP of 95.2%, combined tooth-implant-supported FDP of 95.5% and implant-supported SC of 94.5% as well as resin-bonded bridges 87.7%. Moreover, after 10 years of function the estimated survival decreased to 89.2% for conventional FDP, to 80.3% for cantilever FDP, to 86.7% for implant-supported FDP, to 77.8% for combined tooth-implant-supported FDP, to 89.4% for implant-supported SC and to 65% for resin-bonded bridges. When planning prosthetic rehabilitations, conventional end-abutment tooth-supported FDP, solely implant-supported FDP or implant-supported SC should be the first treatment option. Only as a second option, because of reasons such as financial aspects patient-centered preferences or anatomical structures cantilever tooth-supported FDP, combined tooth-implant-supported FDP or resin-bonded bridges should be chosen.

How scientific is the science in ethnopharmacology? Historical perspectives and epistemological problems

This commentary is based on a general concern regarding the low level of self-criticism (-evaluation) in the interpretation of molecular pharmacological data published in ethnopharmacology-related journals. Reports on potentially new lead structures or pharmacological effects of medicinal plant extracts are mushrooming. At the same time, nonsense in bioassays is an increasing phenomenon in herbal medicine research. Only because a dataset is reproducible does not imply that it is meaningful. Currently, there are thousands of claims of pharmacological effects of medicinal plants and natural products. It is argued that claims to knowledge in ethnopharmacology, as in the exact sciences, should be rationally criticized if they have empirical content as it is the case with biochemical and pharmacological analyses. Here the major problem is the misemployment of the concentration-effect paradigm and the overinterpretation of data obtained in vitro. Given the almost exponential increase of scientific papers published it may be the moment to adapt to a falsificationist methodology.