Fanningmccarthy1887

2 (SD = 4) four days post-stroke. Cognitive problems were reported by 199 (55%) patients three months post-stroke. Internal consistencies of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-5L+C were 0.75 and 0.77, respectively. Adding a cognitive domain resulted in a decrease of the ceiling effect from 22% to 14%. Both EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-5L+C showed good discriminative ability, but differences between patients with different modified Rankin Scale scores and with/without reported decrease in health and daily activities were slightly larger with the EQ-5D-5L+C compared to the EQ-5D-5L. CONCLUSIONS The EQ-5D-5L+C, which includes a cognitive domain that is highly significant for stroke patients, showed increased content validity and good discriminative ability, without losing internal consistency.Sudden sensorineural hearing loss is a common otologic disease in clinic. Systemic and intratympanic steroid treatment have been proved to be effective, but the regimens vary from center to center. HOIPIN-8 manufacturer The purpose of the study is to analyze the effects of the combined application of intravenous dexamethasone and intratympanic methylprednisolone injection in different time strategies for the treatment of unilateral sudden sensorineural hearing loss. A retrospective chart review was performed for the period from March 2016 to June 2018 at our Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. A total number of 61 patients who met the academy criteria for unilateral sudden hearing loss were included and grouped based on the time to introduce intratympanic methylprednisolone. All the patients received intravenous dexamethasone 10 mg once daily for 5 days, followed 5 mg once daily for the next 7 days. Intratympanic methylprednisolone (40 mg) was injected every other day 4 times into all patients. This regimen was commenced on day 1 in group 1 and on day 6 in group 2. The pre and posttreatment pure-tone audiograms were analyzed. Sixty-one patients met our inclusion criteria. No significant differences were observed between patients' demographics or pretreatment hearing thresholds. In the 3 months posttreatment pure-tone audiogram assessment, the mean hearing threshold improvement were similar between groups with no frequency specificity. The curative rate in both groups were similar and satisfying. Two patients with diabetes mellitus had persistent small perforations. Some patients had other transient discomfort that disappeared before discharge. The different timing of initiation of intratympanic methylprednisolone injection does not significantly affect the outcome of the treatment for sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Thus, we suggest that intratympanic steroid injection should not be applied as a first-line method except for patients who do not respond early to systemic steroid therapy.BACKGROUND Palate re-repair has been proposed as an effective treatment for velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) with a low risk of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the proportion of patients achieving normal speech resonance following palate re-repair for VPI, the proportion developing OSA, and the criteria for patient selection that are associated with increased effectiveness. METHODS PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched from inception through April 2018 for English language articles evaluating palate re-repair for the treatment of VPI in patients with a repaired cleft palate. Inclusion criteria included reporting of hypernasality, nasal air emission, nasometry, additional VPI surgery, and/or OSA outcomes. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models. Risk of bias was assessed regarding criteria for patient selection, blinding of outcome assessors, and validity of speech assessment scale. RESULTS Eighteen studies met inclusion criteria. The incidence of achieving no consistent hypernasality follow palate re-repair was 61% (95% confidence interval [CI] 44%-75%). The incidence of additional surgery for persistent VPI symptoms was 21% (95% CI 12%-33%). The incidence of OSA was 28% (95% CI 13%-49%). Criteria for selecting patients to undergo re-repair varied, with anterior/sagittal position of palatal muscles (33%) and small velopharyngeal gap (22%) being the most common. No specific patient selection criteria led to superior speech outcomes (P = .6572). CONCLUSIONS Palate re-repair achieves normal speech resonance in many but not all patients with VPI. Further research is needed to identify the specific examination and imaging findings that predict successful correction of VPI with re-repair.BACKGROUND Disability resulting from headache disorders is attributable in part to avoidant coping. Acceptance of pain connotes a willingness to experience pain in the service of life values, such that meaningful activities and goals are pursued despite pain. Acceptance facilitates positive health outcomes but has rarely been investigated in headache. Because headache disorders manifest differently than other forms of chronic pain, the present study sought to develop and validate a measure of acceptance of headache. METHODS Forty-five candidate items were developed and, with input from an expert panel, reduced to 24 items. Five items were eliminated following administration to a development sample and exploratory factory analysis. Nineteen items were administered to a validation sample for confirmatory factory analysis and assessment of psychometric properties. RESULTS Factor analysis produced a unidimensional six-item measure, the Headache Acceptance Questionnaire (HAQ). The HAQ evidenced good internal consistency, convergent validity with headache disability and related psychological constructs, and divergent validity with social desirability. The measure also distinguished between headache diagnostic groups. CONCLUSIONS Pending further validation in clinical settings, the HAQ may have utility in assessing psychological responses to headache symptoms, identifying targets of treatment for interventions that focus on reducing avoidance, and studying mechanisms of change.BACKGROUND Random design experiments are a powerful device for estimating average treatment effects, but evaluators sometimes seek to estimate the distribution of treatment effects. For example, an evaluator might seek to learn the proportion of treated units who benefit from treatment, the proportion who receive no benefit, and the proportion who are harmed by treatment. METHOD Imbens and Rubin (I&R) recommend a Bayesian approach to drawing inferences about the distribution of treatment effects. Drawing on the I&R recommendations, this article explains the approach; provides computing algorithms for continuous, binary, ordered and countable outcomes; and offers simulated and real-world illustrations. RESULTS This article shows how the I&R approach leads to bounded uncertainty intervals for summary measures of the distribution of treatment effects. It clarifies the nature of those bounds and shows that they are typically informative. CONCLUSIONS Despite identification issues, bounded solutions provide useful insight into the distribution of treatment effects.