Is inflammation the cause of pre-eclampsia?

It has been proposed that either excessive inflammation or an imbalance in angiogenic factors cause pre-eclampsia. In the present review, the arguments for and against the role of inflammation and/or angiogenic imbalance as the cause of pre-eclampsia are discussed on the basis of the Bradford-Hill criteria for disease causation. Although both angiogenic imbalance and systemic inflammation are implicated in pre-eclampsia, the absence of temporality of inflammatory markers with pre-eclampsia challenges the concept that excessive inflammation is the cause of pre-eclampsia. In contrast, the elevation of anti-angiogenic factors that precede the clinical signs of pre-eclampsia fulfils the criterion of temporality. The second most important criterion is the dose-response relationship. Although such a relationship has not been proven between pro-inflammatory cytokines and pre-eclampsia, high levels of anti-angiogenic factors have been shown to correlate with increased incidence and disease severity, hence satisfying this condition. Finally, as the removal of circulating sFlt-1 (soluble Fms-like tyrosine kinase receptor-1) from pre-eclamptic patients significantly improves the clinical outcome, it fulfils the Hill's experiment principle, which states that removal of the cause by an appropriate experimental regimen should ameliorate the condition. In contrast, treatment with high doses of corticosteroid fails to improve maternal outcome in pre-eclampsia, despite suppressing inflammation. Inflammation may enhance the pathology induced by the imbalance in the angiogenic factors, but does not by itself cause pre-eclampsia. Development of therapies based on the angiogenic and cytoprotective mechanisms seems more promising.

Research strategies for organizational history:a dialogue between historical theory and organization theory

If history matters for organization theory, then we need greater reflexivity regarding the epistemological problem of representing the past; otherwise, history might be seen as merely a repository of ready-made data. To facilitate this reflexivity, we set out three epistemological dualisms derived from historical theory to explain the relationship between history and organization theory: (1) in the dualism of explanation, historians are preoccupied with narrative construction, whereas organization theorists subordinate narrative to analysis; (2) in the dualism of evidence, historians use verifiable documentary sources, whereas organization theorists prefer constructed data; and (3) in the dualism of temporality, historians construct their own periodization, whereas organization theorists treat time as constant for chronology. These three dualisms underpin our explication of four alternative research strategies for organizational history: corporate history, consisting of a holistic, objectivist narrative of a corporate entity; analytically structured history, narrating theoretically conceptualized structures and events; serial history, using replicable techniques to analyze repeatable facts; and ethnographic history, reading documentary sources "against the grain." Ultimately, we argue that our epistemological dualisms will enable organization theorists to justify their theoretical stance in relation to a range of strategies in organizational history, including narratives constructed from documentary sources found in organizational archives. Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved.