Effect of ion temperature on propagation of ion-acoustic solitary waves of small amplitudes in collisionless plasma

By using a perturbation technique, the Korteweg-de Vries equation is derived for a mixture of warm-ion fluid and hot, isothermal electrons. Stationary solutions are obtained for this equation and are compared with the corresponding solutions for a mixture consisting of cold-ion fluid and hot, isothermal electrons.

Effect of Increasing Low Dose Simplexin Exposure in Cattle consuming Pimelia trychostachya

Pimelea species (or desert riceflower) are small native plants endemic to the drier inland pastoral regions of Australia, which cause a unique syndrome in grazing cattle characterised by submandibular oedema and oedema in the brisket area as a result of right-sided heart failure attributed to the toxin simplexin. Field evidence suggests that poisoning can occur through minor, inadvertent consumption of Pimelea plant material, but the minimum simplexin intake required to induce Pimelea poisoning is not known. In this study, mild Pimelea poisoning was induced at a daily dose of 12.5 mg Pimelea/kg bodyweight per day, equivalent to 2.5 µg simplexin/kg bodyweight per day, demonstrating the high potential toxicity of these plant species. Effects in all animals diminished with prolonged low dose feeding and we postulate that these animals developed mechanisms for detoxifying simplexin, 1, possibly through rumen bacteria adaptation or activation of liver enzymes.

Effect of exercise referral schemes in primary care on physical activity and improving health outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To assess the impact of exercise referral schemes on physical activity and health outcomes. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and ongoing trial registries up to October 2009. We also checked study references. Study selection - Design: randomised controlled trials or non-randomised controlled (cluster or individual) studies published in peer review journals. - Population: sedentary individuals with or without medical diagnosis. - Exercise referral schemes defined as: clear referrals by primary care professionals to third party service providers to increase physical activity or exercise, physical activity or exercise programmes tailored to individuals, and initial assessment and monitoring throughout programmes. - Comparators: usual care, no intervention, or alternative exercise referral schemes. Results Eight randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, comparing exercise referral schemes with usual care (six trials), alternative physical activity intervention (two), and an exercise referral scheme plus a self determination theory intervention (one). Compared with usual care, follow-up data for exercise referral schemes showed an increased number of participants who achieved 90-150 minutes of physical activity of at least moderate intensity per week (pooled relative risk 1.16, 95% confidence intervals 1.03 to 1.30) and a reduced level of depression (pooled standardised mean difference −0.82, −1.28 to −0.35). Evidence of a between group difference in physical activity of moderate or vigorous intensity or in other health outcomes was inconsistent at follow-up. We did not find any difference in outcomes between exercise referral schemes and the other two comparator groups. None of the included trials separately reported outcomes in individuals with specific medical diagnoses. Substantial heterogeneity in the quality and nature of the exercise referral schemes across studies might have contributed to the inconsistency in outcome findings. Conclusions Considerable uncertainty remains as to the effectiveness of exercise referral schemes for increasing physical activity, fitness, or health indicators, or whether they are an efficient use of resources for sedentary people with or without a medical diagnosis.

Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study

Objective To quantify and compare the treatment effect and risk of bias of trials reporting biomarkers or intermediate outcomes (surrogate outcomes) versus trials using final patient relevant primary outcomes. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources All randomised clinical trials published in 2005 and 2006 in six high impact medical journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and PLoS Medicine. Study selection Two independent reviewers selected trials. Data extraction Trial characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes were recorded according to a predefined form. Two reviewers independently checked data extraction. The ratio of odds ratios was used to quantify the degree of difference in treatment effects between the trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes, also adjusted for trial characteristics. A ratio of odds ratios >1.0 implies that trials with surrogate outcomes report larger intervention effects than trials with patient relevant outcomes. Results 84 trials using surrogate outcomes and 101 using patient relevant outcomes were considered for analyses. Study characteristics of trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes were well balanced, except for median sample size (371 v 741) and single centre status (23% v 9%). Their risk of bias did not differ. Primary analysis showed trials reporting surrogate endpoints to have larger treatment effects (odds ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.60) than trials reporting patient relevant outcomes (0.76, 0.70 to 0.82), with an unadjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.47 (1.07 to 2.01) and adjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.46 (1.05 to 2.04). This result was consistent across sensitivity and secondary analyses. Conclusions Trials reporting surrogate primary outcomes are more likely to report larger treatment effects than trials reporting final patient relevant primary outcomes. This finding was not explained by differences in the risk of bias or characteristics of the two groups of trials.