Health Affairs

The World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020, has declared the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak a global pandemic (1). At a news briefing , WHO Director-General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, noted that over the past 2 weeks, the number of cases outside China increased 13-fold and the number of countries with cases increased threefold. Further increases are expected. He said that the WHO is "deeply concerned both by the alarming levels of spread and severity and by the alarming levels of inaction," and he called on countries to take action now to contain the virus. "We should double down," he said. "We should be more aggressive." [...].

The worldwide burden of kidney disease is rising, but public awareness remains limited, underscoring the need for more effective communication by stakeholders in the kidney health community. Despite this need for clarity, the nomenclature for describing kidney function and disease lacks uniformity. In June 2019, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) convened a Consensus Conference with the goal of standardizing and refining the nomenclature used in the English language to describe kidney function and disease, and of developing a glossary that could be used in scientific publications. Guiding principles of the conference were that the revised nomenclature should be patient-centered, precise, and consistent with nomenclature used in the KDIGO guidelines. Conference attendees reached general consensus on the following recommendations: (i) to use “kidney“ rather than “renal” or “nephro-” when referring to kidney disease and kidney function; (ii) to use “kidney failure” with appropriate descriptions of presence or absence of symptoms, signs, and treatment, rather than “end-stage kidney disease”; (iii) to use the KDIGO definition and classification of acute kidney diseases and disorders (AKD) and acute kidney injury (AKI), rather than alternative descriptions, to define and classify severity of AKD and AKI; (iv) to use the KDIGO definition and classification of chronic kidney disease (CKD) rather than alternative descriptions to define and classify severity of CKD; and (v) to use specific kidney measures, such as albuminuria or decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR), rather than “abnormal” or “reduced” kidney function to describe alterations in kidney structure and function. A proposed 5-part glossary contains specific items for which there was general agreement. Conference attendees acknowledged limitations of the recommendations and glossary, but they considered standardization of scientific nomenclature to be essential for improving communication. The worldwide burden of kidney disease is rising, but public awareness remains limited, underscoring the need for more effective communication by stakeholders in the kidney health community. Despite this need for clarity, the nomenclature for describing kidney function and disease lacks uniformity. In June 2019, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) convened a Consensus Conference with the goal of standardizing and refining the nomenclature used in the English language to describe kidney function and disease, and of developing a glossary that could be used in scientific publications. Guiding principles of the conference were that the revised nomenclature should be patient-centered, precise, and consistent with nomenclature used in the KDIGO guidelines. Conference attendees reached general consensus on the following recommendations: (i) to use “kidney“ rather than “renal” or “nephro-” when referring to kidney disease and kidney function; (ii) to use “kidney failure” with appropriate descriptions of presence or absence of symptoms, signs, and treatment, rather than “end-stage kidney disease”; (iii) to use the KDIGO definition and classification of acute kidney diseases and disorders (AKD) and acute kidney injury (AKI), rather than alternative descriptions, to define and classify severity of AKD and AKI; (iv) to use the KDIGO definition and classification of chronic kidney disease (CKD) rather than alternative descriptions to define and classify severity of CKD; and (v) to use specific kidney measures, such as albuminuria or decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR), rather than “abnormal” or “reduced” kidney function to describe alterations in kidney structure and function. A proposed 5-part glossary contains specific items for which there was general agreement. Conference attendees acknowledged limitations of the recommendations and glossary, but they considered standardization of scientific nomenclature to be essential for improving communication. The worldwide burden of kidney disease is rising, but public awareness remains limited, underscoring the need for effective communication by stakeholders in the kidney health community.1Plantinga L.C. Boulware L.E. Coresh J. et al.Patient awareness of chronic kidney disease: trends and predictors.Arch Intern Med. 2008; 168: 2268-2275Crossref PubMed Scopus (227) Google Scholar, 2Saran R. Robinson B. Abbott K.C. et al.US Renal Data System 2018 Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of Kidney Disease in the United States.Am J Kidney Dis. 2019; 73: A7-A8Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (513) Google Scholar, 3James S.L. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.Lancet. 2018; 392: 1789-1858Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (6082) Google Scholar, 4Global Burden of Disease 2017 Causes of Death CollaboratorsGlobal, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality for 282 causes of death in 195 countries and territories, 1980-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.Lancet. 2018; 392: 1736-1788Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3582) Google Scholar Despite this need for clarity, the nomenclature for describing kidney function and disease lacks uniformity. Two decades ago, a survey of hundreds of published articles and meeting abstracts reported a broad array of overlapping, confusing terms for chronic kidney disease (CKD) and advocated adoption of unambiguous terminology.5Hsu C.Y. Chertow G.M. Chronic renal confusion: insufficiency, failure, dysfunction, or disease.Am J Kidney Dis. 2000; 36: 415-418Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (114) Google Scholar Nevertheless, terms flagged by that analysis as problematic, such as “chronic renal failure” and “pre-dialysis,” still appear in current-day publications. A coherent, shared nomenclature could influence communication at all levels, including not only greater appreciation of the burden of disease, but also improved understanding about how patients feel about their disease, more effective communication between kidney disease specialists and other clinicians, more straightforward comparison and integration of datasets, better recognition of gaps in knowledge for future research, and more comprehensive public health policies for acute and chronic kidney disease. The international organization Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) has developed guidelines promulgating definitions and classifications for acute kidney injury (AKI), acute kidney diseases and disorders (AKD), and CKD, and guidelines for their evaluation and management.6Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Acute Kidney Injury Work GroupKDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury.Kidney Int Suppl. 2012; 2: 1-138Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2007) Google Scholar,7Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work GroupKDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease.Kidney Int Suppl. 2013; 3: 1-150Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (1596) Google Scholar Developing consistent, patient-centered, and precise descriptions of kidney function and disease in the scientific literature is an important objective that KDIGO is now pursuing to align communication in clinical practice, research, and public health. Although some terms have been in use for decades, the increased exchange of information among stakeholders makes it timely to revisit nomenclature in order to ensure consistency. The goal is to facilitate communication within and across disciplines and between practitioner and patient communities, to ultimately improve outcomes through clarity and precision. In June 2019, KDIGO convened a Consensus Conference with the goal of standardizing and refining the nomenclature used in English-language scientific articles to describe kidney function and disease, and developing a glossary that could be used by journals. Prior to the conference, KDIGO posted an announcement of the conference on its website, including the Scope of Work and requested public comment.8Kidney Disease: International Global OutcomesConsensus Conference on Nomenclature for Kidney Function & Disease.https://kdigo.org/conferences/nomenclature/Date Scholar at the conference of kidney kidney at general and other of clinical kidney health research, and Guiding principles of the conference were that the revised nomenclature should be patient-centered, precise, and consistent with nomenclature used in the KDIGO guidelines The on general of acute and chronic kidney disease and kidney measures, rather than specific kidney diseases and of function and The Scope of Work developed to the conference a of for of causes of kidney disease and measures, and for and were considered the of of the and and and the nomenclature to describe kidney function and on general of acute and chronic kidney disease and general kidney measures, rather than specific kidney diseases and specific of function and for “renal” or and definitions and other descriptions of disease and disease kidney and of “kidney with KDIGO guideline to that articles in the English-language literature should rather than “renal” or “nephro-” when referring to kidney disease and kidney failure” with appropriate descriptions of presence or absence of symptoms, signs, and rather than definition and classification of AKD and rather than alternative descriptions to define and classify severity of AKD and definition and classification of CKD rather than alternative descriptions to define and classify severity of kidney as albuminuria or decreased rather than “abnormal” or “reduced” kidney function to describe alterations in kidney structure and acute kidney diseases and acute kidney CKD, chronic kidney glomerular filtration Kidney Disease: Improving Global in a acute kidney diseases and acute kidney CKD, chronic kidney glomerular filtration Kidney Disease: Improving Global Prior KDIGO have been but is about the of terms used to describe kidney function and disease on have kidney disease. KDIGO a of patient and on the to the conference of which the and the reported et and on terms used to describe kidney health of J Scholar KDIGO a survey of attendees to the conference, of which and their Nomenclature is as for specific and in the has the of international et of A for and Google Scholar The of nomenclature the of an of some be to that be more or Nomenclature be consistent with knowledge and to for the but to with in the et of A for and Google Scholar The KDIGO guidelines define kidney disease as or of the that have for and classify kidney disease to severity of and and Coresh J. et of kidney disease: to health 2013; Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google and classification of kidney J Kidney Dis. 2013; Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar A other have proposed J. et proposed nomenclature and for in acute and chronic kidney disease.Kidney 2008; 73: Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, et for renal in acute kidney PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, et and disease of the a of the on Nomenclature and on of PubMed Google Scholar, S.L. et kidney disease: and KDIGO consensus Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar but have been on specific diseases or standardization have a or A nomenclature for of the The Renal of the International of Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar The of the and used for in recommendations nomenclature for kidney disease and function in the at the of the of Scholar kidney have nomenclature but not they shared among journals. Conference attendees that the KDIGO guideline for definitions and classifications of acute and chronic kidney disease the for nomenclature standardization Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Acute Kidney Injury Work GroupKDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury.Kidney Int Suppl. 2012; 2: 1-138Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2007) Google Scholar,7Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work GroupKDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease.Kidney Int Suppl. 2013; 3: 1-150Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (1596) Google Scholar The and of the of as that is and patient and and that patient all clinical on the of in the United of the A System for the Scholar of the general principles for of the health is that is shared and information should have to their information and to clinical and patients should and is some that is in G.M. in the use of and language in the of 2019; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar In the terms used to describe kidney function and disease should be to with of in the of health of terms with to as use of terms that the future as rather than describe the A general definition of is or of of Scholar is and is a in which be to a that more precise management of clinical The in which a is to the clinical and has and in In the Kidney by the of to and kidney with or CKD; a kidney define disease and and that for Scholar has in it is that that in disease descriptions be nomenclature for kidney function and disease, rather than it A of with CKD and the United United and in and by to terms and used for kidney health. The of analysis the and to nomenclature for CKD et and on terms used to describe kidney health of J Scholar to the conference, a for use of the rather than it is more and of use of the it causes of the and is The “kidney failure” to be it still more clarity about the severity of disease and including descriptions, with the understanding that they need to the of the future it is important to in and and with kidney disease and their and patients with with acute kidney patient and a of analysis of patients with chronic kidney disease across all and the United United and and by Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes to to terms and used for kidney and of the in or and and of by by by in to of the of kidney with and and need for and for terms for a of analysis of patients with chronic kidney disease across all and the United United and and by Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes to to terms and used for kidney et and on terms used to describe kidney health of J Scholar in a A of the to the Scope of the Work and a survey of attendees to the conference general with the goal of standardizing some of the that a nomenclature for kidney function and disease their and that the language in should that used when with important to were in were that they the to nomenclature in to the of of public and with goal of standardizing with of of terms and of to definitions as confusing and to that a nomenclature in and between terms used in and patient to be an important but not the need for and that a more nomenclature for kidney disease be for their but they of to be the to of “renal” with that be for patients and their a greater of and public with consistent use of a “renal” be in some and be in as a with as a of kidney that this be and for the of death to be by in its use a for patients to a of patients with kidney with or kidney of the need for to nomenclature that standardization of nomenclature is on of consensus definitions in or more standardization of that nomenclature be adoption of definitions the need for with that improved understanding of to definitions and for & renal disease. with goal of standardizing with of of terms and of to definitions as confusing and to that a nomenclature in and between terms used in and patient to be an important but not the need for and that a more nomenclature for kidney disease be for their but they of to be the to of “renal” with that be for patients and their a greater of and public with consistent use of a “renal” be in some and be in as a with as a of kidney that this be and for the of death to be by in its use a for patients to a of patients with kidney with or kidney of the need for to nomenclature that standardization of nomenclature is on of consensus definitions in or more standardization of that nomenclature be adoption of definitions the need for with that improved understanding of to definitions and nomenclature for & renal disease. Conference attendees reached general consensus for of the a proposed glossary contains and specific items on which there was general among conference the glossary descriptions, and terms to with that which of the recommendations to and that when and how to terms to be consistent with nomenclature for other of the use of glossary terms in the at the conference and of Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) kidney function and disease terms to describe kidney function and kidney disease and and and when to to Kidney function and should be used when describing kidney disease and kidney with the “nephro-” in the of specific or Kidney the of acute kidney diseases and disorders and chronic kidney in the of specific Kidney the of and of the should not be with glomerular filtration rate function when describing specific renal renal kidney to of kidney which should be kidney to of kidney which should be insufficiency, kidney function in with kidney is Although it is used in the of this could be used to to kidney function in kidney renal function Kidney the of and of the by and of injury and structure when describing specific within the such as kidney to of kidney which should be kidney to of kidney which should be Causes of kidney of and CKD should be be or for and of should be should not be only presence of as and when to to Kidney or by is renal disease kidney disease renal insufficiency, kidney injury be revised by KDIGO guideline renal renal insufficiency, renal chronic renal chronic chronic insufficiency, kidney and or and with and be with of and with kidney not a for be revised by KDIGO AKD consensus is and by by to for CKD; also be to as to for acute terms acute and chronic to of kidney disease rather than of and or or kidney or kidney with by or CKD for should be is is not not kidney comprehensive is definition is comprehensive is comprehensive is not not and when to to Acute kidney diseases and disorders (AKD) and acute kidney injury recognition of renal acute renal Acute kidney be revised by KDIGO AKD consensus or or of kidney for or in by or in by for Acute kidney definition is a of for in by in or by in classification by and rather than a patient with to classification to all including and KDIGO classification definition only to with and when to to Chronic kidney disease renal insufficiency, or of kidney for insufficiency, and when to to CKD classification by and albuminuria for definitions of and A a patient with CKD to or a with CKD of that CKD classification is only to with CKD, a patient could not be as there was other of kidney CKD; CKD rather than of not or CKD, CKD CKD definitions to on the to to to to CKD to or not is not consensus on use of specific terms to describe the or rate of of specific terms should be in be for other which not be considered as CKD CKD to improving or on disease. of specific terms should be in and when to to Kidney to with or kidney and improve filtration rate and and not filtration be or glomerular filtration and filtration should be in glomerular filtration and and filtration and should be in glomerular filtration and be be or and should be in and and should be in use in describing of the presence or absence of kidney for be to increased or by of is but not this is used as an or the be of is as the between and function and as for should be in of or or for or of for should be in for should be in of or or for or of for should be in and use in describing albuminuria or of the presence or absence of kidney disease increased to increased to increased increased clinical be revised by KDIGO guideline with or as by the presence of and in function is to or to is to or to of of acute kidney diseases and acute kidney Acute Kidney Injury acute renal acute renal acute CKD, chronic kidney CKD Epidemiology kidney glomerular filtration kidney kidney renal renal glomerular filtration Kidney Disease: Improving Global kidney with kidney kidney of in Renal CKD; CKD; renal renal of kidney and kidney and when to be revised by KDIGO guideline be revised by KDIGO AKD consensus be revised by KDIGO guideline in a acute kidney diseases and acute kidney Acute Kidney Injury acute renal acute renal acute CKD, chronic kidney CKD Epidemiology kidney glomerular filtration kidney kidney renal renal glomerular filtration Kidney Disease: Improving Global kidney with kidney kidney of in Renal CKD; CKD; renal renal of kidney and kidney that it be to use the rather than “renal” or the “nephro-” for general descriptions of kidney disease and function practice be in with patient in the The is that for English-language is more than “renal” and which to be used in more In it is and a rather than terms is to specific kidney or the terms or to be acknowledged that English is not the language for of in the English-language should that with be in this rather than for within a Although classification of of kidney disease was not attendees that the of and CKD should be as or and that the for and of should be should not be only the presence of for it should not be that CKD in with is to were in their that use of the should be for describing a of kidney disease or in that The is that the is not or for in the United renal disease is in as a in which a on a to the need for a of or a kidney to to on on the of for all not only to the kidney for and renal disease Scholar In it to an to for a rather than the the is used to describe patients with CKD by or and not to with the not treatment, by of recognition of the disease, or of the as in the patient and it not define a of for years with it that the of is and it be with a in not at the of In the chronic the “kidney failure” was as in the KDIGO CKD guideline filtration rate or by with symptoms, and Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Acute Kidney Injury Work GroupKDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury.Kidney Int Suppl. 2012; 2: 1-138Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2007) Google Scholar,7Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work GroupKDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease.Kidney Int Suppl. 2013; 3: 1-150Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (1596) Google Scholar In the acute conference attendees with disease severity by and treatment, but they not consensus on use of the “kidney failure” rather than or use of “kidney for all of it be appropriate for to be in with the of the KDIGO Disease: International Global Conference on Acute Kidney 2019; Scholar Conference attendees that and of kidney or the be and and there or to was as for research, with the that it be in the future to classify kidney by the presence or absence of and The KDIGO Conference in Chronic Kidney Disease use of the for not to but to for of kidney et of the KDIGO Conference on in Chronic Kidney Disease: developing a to improving Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar also an that could be used of with was considered to be consistent with the attendees the that of this in nomenclature not the to in the United and that the KDIGO definition and classification for should be used rather than the definitions to the classification and the Acute Kidney Injury which were by the 2012 KDIGO guideline Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Acute Kidney Injury Work GroupKDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury.Kidney Int Suppl. 2012; 2: 1-138Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2007) Google Scholar for a in by an in or within to with the severity of by the severity of in or for of kidney for as for CKD is that the for only in and of and its severity the of in is in other for AKD were proposed in the 2012 KDIGO they of kidney or for classification by AKD but it also disorders by of kidney such as and in which the rate of in is not as as in that AKD is more than et and of acute kidney diseases and disorders an to in a health 2019; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar definitions of and AKD were proposed by the Acute Conference in R. et kidney disease and renal consensus of the Acute Disease PubMed Scopus Google Scholar that the AKD definition to be consistent with the definitions of and CKD is a and this be the for a future KDIGO Consensus that the KDIGO definition and classification for CKD should be used rather than other definitions The for of kidney or for the CKD Kidney clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: and J Kidney Dis. Google Scholar The classification of CKD was by the 2012 KDIGO CKD guideline to of disease, of and of albuminuria as the rather than used in the Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work GroupKDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease.Kidney Int Suppl. 2013; 3: 1-150Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (1596) Google Kidney clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: and J Kidney Dis. Google Scholar The albuminuria and have been to their with for outcomes and kidney and CKD as a Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work GroupKDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease.Kidney Int Suppl. 2013; 3: 1-150Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (1596) Google Scholar The guideline specific terms for of and of CKD, its and is not The terms and not and their use is not they should be in the of that specific kidney as albuminuria or and decreased rather than “abnormal” or “reduced” kidney should be used to describe alterations in kidney structure and function all measures, it is important to and of and their the 2012 CKD guideline Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work GroupKDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease.Kidney Int Suppl. 2013; 3: 1-150Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (1596) Google Scholar of is to that of it be and is more in the but in albuminuria and it is important to describe the of for and and for and as as The terms and should not be used as it is important to the filtration and it is important to the filtration and and should be to of for and should be to such as and and the of filtration be by The albuminuria and in the 2012 CKD guideline be to with or CKD, but it is to be as to or not with albuminuria or and have that the of albuminuria or is but is on presence or absence of the The of the 2012 KDIGO guideline an alternative for J. et and of glomerular diseases a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2019; Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar The 2012 and CKD KDIGO guidelines about of the definitions and classifications to Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Acute Kidney Injury Work GroupKDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury.Kidney Int Suppl. 2012; 2: 1-138Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2007) Google Scholar,7Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work GroupKDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease.Kidney Int Suppl. 2013; 3: 1-150Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (1596) Google Scholar not to with CKD to or and for and in to in is use of terms to describe acute and chronic kidney disease and kidney disease Conference attendees with the goal of standardizing and refining the nomenclature used in English to describe kidney function and disease, and of developing a glossary that could be used by for of scientific reached general consensus on the recommendations and on a glossary that the recommendations to be and by journals.

American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 91(7):p 549, July 2012. | DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e318255982e

Team-based learning™ (TBL) is an instructional strategy developed in the business school environment in the early 1990s by Dr Michaelsen who wanted the benefits of small group learning within large classes. In 2001, a US federal granting agency awarded funds for educators in the health sciences to learn about and implement the strategy in their educational programs; TBL was put forward as one such strategy and as a result it is used in over 60 US and international health science professional schools. TBL is very different from problem-based learning (PBL) and other small group approaches in that there is no need for multiple faculty or rooms, students must come prepared to sessions, and individual and small groups of students (teams) are highly accountable for their contributions to team productivity. The instructor must be a content-expert, but need not have any experience or expertise in group process to conduct a successful TBL session. Students do not need any specific instruction in teamwork since they learn how to be collaborative and productive in the process. TBL can replace or complement a lecture-based course or curriculum.

INTRODUCTION: Discussions about sexual health are uncommon in clinical encounters, despite the sexual dysfunction associated with many common health conditions. Understanding of the importance of sexual health and sexual satisfaction in U.S. adults is limited. AIM: To provide epidemiologic data on the importance of sexual health for quality of life and people's satisfaction with their sex lives and to examine how each is associated with demographic and health factors. METHODS: Data are from a cross-sectional self-report questionnaire from a sample of 3,515 English-speaking U.S. adults recruited from an online panel that uses address-based probability sampling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We report ratings of importance of sexual health to quality of life (single item with five-point response) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Satisfaction With Sex Life score (five items, each with five-point responses, scores centered on the U.S. mean). RESULTS: High importance of sexual health to quality of life was reported by 62.2% of men (95% CI = 59.4-65.0) and 42.8% of women (95% CI = 39.6-46.1, P < .001). Importance of sexual health varied by sex, age, sexual activity status, and general self-rated health. For the 55% of men and 45% of women who reported sexual activity in the previous 30 days, satisfaction with sex life differed by sex, age, race-ethnicity (among men only), and health. Men and women in excellent health had significantly higher satisfaction than participants in fair or poor health. Women with hypertension reported significantly lower satisfaction (especially younger women), as did men with depression or anxiety (especially younger men). CONCLUSION: In this large study of U.S. adults' ratings of the importance of sexual health and satisfaction with sex life, sexual health was a highly important aspect of quality of life for many participants, including participants in poor health. Moreover, participants in poorer health reported lower sexual satisfaction. Accordingly, sexual health should be a routine part of clinicians' assessments of their patients. Health care systems that state a commitment to improving patients' overall health must have resources in place to address sexual concerns. These resources should be available for all patients across the lifespan.

The historical evolution of infant feeding includes wet nursing, the feeding bottle, and formula use. Before the invention of bottles and formula, wet nursing was the safest and most common alternative to the natural mother's breastmilk. Society's negative view of wet nursing, combined with improvements of the feeding bottle, the availability of animal's milk, and advances in formula development, gradually led to the substitution of artificial feeding for wet nursing. In addition, the advertising and safety of formula products increased their popularity and use among society. Currently, infant formula-feeding is widely practiced in the United States and appears to contribute to the development of several common childhood illnesses, including atopy, diabetes mellitus, and childhood obesity.

OBJECTIVE: The authors present an accurate and comprehensive snapshot of appendicitis and the practice of appendectomy in the 1990s. METHODS: Appendectomies were performed on 4950 patients in 147 Department of Defense hospitals worldwide over a 12-month period ending January 31, 1993. RESULTS: The median age was 23 years (range, 6 months to 82 years) with 64% males and 36% females. The patients were assigned a diagnosis of normal appendix in 632 (13%) cases, acute appendicitis in 3286 (66%) cases, and perforated appendicitis in 1032 (21%) cases. There were no differences in perforation and normal appendix rates between those operations performed in teaching hospitals versus community hospitals or between high-volume hospitals (> or = 100 appendectomies/year) versus low-volume hospitals. Both a preoperative temperature > or = 100.5 and a preoperative leukocyte count > or = 10,000 were incapable of discriminating between patients with appendicitis and those with a normal appendix. Multivariate analysis showed a significantly increased risk of perforation associated with age younger than or equal to 8 years (38% vs. 18%) and age older than or equal to 45 years (49% vs. 18%). Females had a significantly higher rate of normal appendices (19% vs. 9%) and a lower rate of perforation (18% vs. 23%). The complication rates to include reoperation and intraabdominal sepsis were markedly increased in those patients with perforation. There were four deaths in this series (0.08%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a marked decline in associated mortality over the past 50 years, rates of perforation and negative appendectomy remain unchanged because they are influenced strongly by factors untouched by the intervening technologic advances.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) share phenotypic and pathologic overlap. Recently, an expansion of GGGGCC repeats in the first intron of C9orf72 was found to be a common cause of both illnesses; however, the molecular pathogenesis of this expanded repeat is unknown. Here we developed both Drosophila and mammalian models of this expanded hexanucleotide repeat and showed that expression of the expanded GGGGCC repeat RNA (rGGGGCC) is sufficient to cause neurodegeneration. We further identified Pur α as the RNA-binding protein of rGGGGCC repeats and discovered that Pur α and rGGGGCC repeats interact in vitro and in vivo in a sequence-specific fashion that is conserved between mammals and Drosophila. Furthermore, overexpression of Pur α in mouse neuronal cells and Drosophila mitigates rGGGGCC repeat-mediated neurodegeneration, and Pur α forms inclusions in the fly eye expressing expanded rGGGGCC repeats, as well as in cerebellum of human carriers of expanded GGGGCC repeats. These data suggest that expanded rGGGGCC repeats could sequester specific RNA-binding protein from their normal functions, ultimately leading to cell death. Taken together, these findings suggest that the expanded rGGGGCC repeats could cause neurodegeneration, and that Pur α may play a role in the pathogenesis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia.

The authors analyze the challenges to using academic measures (MCAT scores and GPAs) as thresholds for admissions and, for applicants exceeding the threshold, using personal qualities for admission decisions; review the literature on using the medical school interview and other admission data to assess personal qualities of applicants; identify challenges of developing better methods of assessing personal qualities; and propose a unified system for assessment. The authors discuss three challenges to using the threshold approach: institutional self-interest, inertia, and philosophical and historical factors. Institutional self-interest arises from the potential for admitting students with lower academic credentials, which could negatively influence indicators used to rank medical schools. Inertia can make introducing a new system complex. Philosophical and historical factors are those that tend to value maximizing academic measures. The literature identifies up to 87 different personal qualities relevant to the practice of medicine, and selecting the most salient of these that can be practically measured is a challenging task. The challenges to developing better personal quality measures include selecting and operationally defining the most important qualities, measuring the qualities in a cost-effective manner, and overcoming "cunning" adversaries who, with the incentive and resourcefulness, can potentially invalidate such measures. The authors discuss potential methods of measuring personal qualities and propose a unified system of assessment that would pool resources from certification and recertification efforts to develop competencies across the continuum with a dynamic, integrated approach to assessment.

Teamwork is integral to a working environment conducive to patient safety and care. Team training is one methodology designed to equip team members with the competencies necessary for optimizing teamwork. There is evidence of team training's effectiveness in highly complex and dynamic work environments, such as aviation and health care. However, most quantitative evaluations of training do not offer any insight into the actual reasons why, how, and when team training is effective. To address this gap in understanding, and to provide guidance for members of the health care community interested in implementing team training programs, this article presents both quantitative results and a specific qualitative review and content analysis of team training implemented in health care. Based on this review, we offer eight evidence-based principles for effective planning, implementation, and evaluation of team training programs specific to health care.

BACKGROUND: New psychoactive substances constitute a growing and dynamic class of abused drugs in the United States. On July 12, 2016, a synthetic cannabinoid caused mass intoxication of 33 persons in one New York City neighborhood, in an event described in the popular press as a "zombie" outbreak because of the appearance of the intoxicated persons. METHODS: We obtained and tested serum, whole blood, and urine samples from 8 patients among the 18 who were transported to local hospitals; we also tested a sample of the herbal "incense" product "AK-47 24 Karat Gold," which was implicated in the outbreak. Samples were analyzed by means of liquid chromatography-quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. RESULTS: The synthetic cannabinoid methyl 2-(1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamido)-3-methylbutanoate (AMB-FUBINACA, also known as MMB-FUBINACA or FUB-AMB) was identified in AK-47 24 Karat Gold at a mean (±SD) concentration of 16.0±3.9 mg per gram. The de-esterified acid metabolite was found in the serum or whole blood of all eight patients, with concentrations ranging from 77 to 636 ng per milliliter. CONCLUSIONS: The potency of the synthetic cannabinoid identified in these analyses is consistent with strong depressant effects that account for the "zombielike" behavior reported in this mass intoxication. AMB-FUBINACA is an example of the emerging class of "ultrapotent" synthetic cannabinoids and poses a public health concern. Collaboration among clinical laboratory staff, health professionals, and law enforcement agencies facilitated the timely identification of the compound and allowed health authorities to take appropriate action.

Orthopaedic surgeons, like all physicians, must make clinical decisions based on the best available evidence. This evidence comes from individual clinical experience and external sources1. Although clinical experience is left to the physician, the medical and surgical literature provides the best external evidence. To facilitate the process of determining the best evidence to answer a clinical question, The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery assigns level of evidence (LOE) ratings to all clinical articles. Since 20032, The Journal has used a hierarchical rating system based on the recommendations of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) in Oxford, United Kingdom, to rank articles according to the study design used to answer the primary research question3. In 2011, the CEBM updated its recommendations. After robust internal and external discussion, The Journal has decided to keep pace with the CEBM and has updated our LOE table. The new LOE table emphasizes the clinical applications of research findings and encourages a more holistic assessment of study design and execution. Those familiar with the original table will notice that this update retains many features of its predecessor4. Nonclinical articles (such as cadaveric and animal studies) are still excluded from the ranking system, studies are still divided by type (therapeutic, prognostic, diagnostic, or economic analysis), and much of the ranking criteria remains the same. Although the new table borrows from the original, it also represents an important departure. The most apparent change is structural. The rows and columns have been transposed, and there is an additional column for clinical questions. This new design reflects the order and the types of questions that arise in the process of clinical care. In this way, the table continues to provide a hierarchy of evidence, but it also assumes a new role, guiding busy clinicians to the best available evidence in real time. Whereas interaction with the original table was limited to authors and editors, the new table will engage readers more directly. Readers are encouraged to formulate their clinical question and to consult the table to determine how to conduct their search. For example, if a clinician asks, “does this intervention help?” the table will direct the reader to seek Therapeutic Level-I (randomized controlled trial) studies first, followed sequentially by Levels II (prospective cohort), III (retrospective cohort), and IV (case series). For clinicians who already perform literature searches in this fashion, the table’s increased accessibility will provide transparency to The Journal’s process of assigning LOEs. Another important update is the table footnote that allows authors and editors to grade Level-I through IV studies upward due to “dramatic effect” or downward on the basis of “study quality, imprecision, or indirectness or because the absolute effect size is very small.” The criteria in the table still guide the process, but this increased flexibility allows for more appropriate LOE assignments when the decision is not obvious. It is also important to note that, although this table is based on CEBM recommendations, we chose not to follow CEBM’s policy of reserving the Level-I designation for systematic reviews. Systematic reviews are important, but we believe that high-quality original research merits an equally high LOE5. Additionally, The Journal recently published guidelines for the submission of systematic reviews and meta-analyses6. Lastly, the section on “Economic and Decision Analyses” was eliminated from the CEBM table, but we have elected to include these studies, now referred to as “Economic” in our table, as they are very important in orthopaedic surgery. These research methodologies are performed with use of preexisting data. The quality of these data and the type of analysis affect the LOE7,8. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, each realization of a parameter is drawn from a prespecified distribution. In stochastic sensitivity analysis, the parameter values are selected from plausible ranges, for example, within the 95% confidence interval of the point estimate. We view the LOE system as a guide to help determine the robustness of research quality but caution that a higher LOE does not necessarily reflect the clinical importance of a given study. The reader is still responsible for examining each article critically and deciding what constitutes the best external evidence for his or her specific clinical question. The Journal publishes studies based on quality of evidence and clinical importance and will continue to take both into account. - Levels of Evidence for Primary Research Question1,2 Study Type Question Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V Diagnostic—Investigating a diagnostic test Is this (early detection) test worthwhile? • Randomized controlled trial • Prospective3 cohort4 study • Retrospective5 cohort4 study• Case-control6 study • Case series • Mechanism-based reasoning Is this diagnostic or monitoring test accurate? • Testing of previously developed diagnostic criteria (consecutive patients with consistently applied reference standard and blinding) • Development of diagnostic criteria (consecutive patients with consistently applied reference standard and blinding) • Nonconsecutive patients• No consistently applied reference standard • Poor or nonindependent reference standard • Mechanism-based reasoning Prognostic—Investigating the effect of a patient characteristic on the outcome of a disease What is the natural history of the condition? • Inception3 cohort study (all patients enrolled at an early, uniform point in the course of their disease) • Prospective3 cohort4 study (patients enrolled at different points in their disease)• Control arm of randomized trial • Retrospective5 cohort4 study• Case-control6 study • Case series • Mechanism-based reasoning Therapeutic—Investigating the results of a treatment Does this treatment help? What are the harms?7 • Randomized controlled trial • Prospective3 cohort4 study• Observational study with dramatic effect • Retrospective5 cohort4 study• Case-control6 study • Case series• Historically controlled study • Mechanism-based reasoning Economic Does the intervention offer good value for dollars spent? Computer simulation model (Monte Carlo simulation, Markov model) with inputs derived from Level-I studies, lifetime time duration, outcomes expressed in dollars per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and uncertainty examined using probabilistic sensitivity analyses Computer simulation model (Monte Carlo simulation, Markov model) with inputs derived from Level-II studies, lifetime time duration, outcomes expressed in dollars per QALYs and uncertainty examined using probabilistic sensitivity analyses Computer simulation model (Markov model) with inputs derived from Level-II studies, relevant time horizon, less than lifetime, outcomes expressed in dollars per QALYs and stochastic multilevel sensitivity analyses Decision tree over the short time horizon with input data from original Level-II and III studies and uncertainty is examined by univariate sensitivity analyses Decision tree over the short time horizon with input data informed by prior economic evaluation and uncertainty is examined by univariate sensitivity analyses 1.This chart was adapted from OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group, “The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence,” Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, http://www.cebm.net/ocebm-levels-of-evidence/. A glossary of terms can be found here: http://www.cebm.net/glossary/.2.Level-I through IV studies may be graded downward on the basis of study quality, imprecision, indirectness, or inconsistency between studies or because the effect size is very small; these studies may be graded upward if there is a dramatic effect size. For example, a high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) should have ≥80% follow-up, blinding, and proper randomization. The Level of Evidence assigned to systematic reviews reflects the ranking of studies included in the review (i.e., a systematic review of Level-II studies is Level II). A complete assessment of the quality of individual studies requires critical appraisal of all aspects of study design.3.Investigators formulated the study question before the first patient was enrolled.4.In these studies, “cohort” refers to a nonrandomized comparative study. For therapeutic studies, patients treated one way (e.g., cemented hip prosthesis) are compared with those treated differently (e.g., cementless hip prosthesis).5.Investigators formulated the study question after the first patient was enrolled.6.Patients identified for the study on the basis of their outcome (e.g., failed total hip arthroplasty), called “cases,” are compared with those who did not have the outcome (e.g., successful total hip arthroplasty), called “controls.”7.Sufficient numbers are required to rule out a common harm (affects >20% of participants). For long-term harms, follow-up duration must be sufficient.

Each year, the American Cancer Society (ACS) publishes a summary of its recommendations for early cancer detection, including guideline updates, emerging issues that are relevant to screening for cancer, and a summary of the most current data on cancer screening rates for US adults. In 2006, there were no updates to ACS guidelines for early cancer detection. In this issue of the journal, we describe criteria for successful screening, discuss recent evidence and policy changes that have implications for cancer screening, summarize the ACS guidelines and describe guidelines reviews that are underway, and provide an update of the most recent data pertaining to participation rates in cancer screening from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS).

Science advances on a foundation of trusted discoveries. Reproducing an experiment is one important approach that scientists use to gain confidence in their conclusions. Recently, the scientific community was shaken by reports that a troubling proportion of peer-reviewed preclinical studies are not reproducible. Because confidence in results is of paramount importance to the broad scientific community, we are announcing new initiatives to increase confidence in the studies published in Science . For preclinical studies (one of the targets of recent concern), we will be adopting recommendations of the U.S. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) for increasing transparency. * Authors will indicate whether there was a pre-experimental plan for data handling (such as how to deal with outliers), whether they conducted a sample size estimation to ensure a sufficient signal-to-noise ratio, whether samples were treated randomly, and whether the experimenter was blind to the conduct of the experiment. These criteria will be included in our author guidelines.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1 Of course, governance is by no means a new concept or focus for the public management research community. There has been a deal of substantive writing in this field for a number of years (Rhodes 1997 Rhodes, R. 1997. Understanding Governance, Buckingham: Open University Press. [Google Scholar]; Peters and Pierre 1998 Peters, G. and Pierre, J. 1998. Governance without Government? Rethinking Public Administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2): 223–243. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Kooiman 1999 Kooiman, J. 1999. Social-Political Governance: Overview, Reflections and Design. Public Management, 1(1): 67–92. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]; Salamon 2002 Salamon, L. 2002. The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance, New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar], to name but a few). What is new though, is its emergence as the dominant paradigm of public services delivery, where public policy making and implementation and intra-organizational management take place within this paradigm, rather than creating the conditions for inter-organizational governance. 2 This does not imply any active willingness to co-produce upon the behalf of the customer – simply that it is impossible to purchase a service without, in some way contributing to its co-production (Korkman 2006 Korkman, O. 2006. Customer Value Formation in Practice: A Practice-Theoretical Approach, Report A155, Helsinki: Hanken Swedish School of Economics. [Google Scholar]). This might be at a minimal level (by co-producing an insurance policy by inputting your personal details) or more holistically (by co-producing a vacation experience through your needs, desires and involvement in 'your' holiday). 3 This is not to say, of course that enduring relationships are always positive – sometimes they can tie service firms into relationships that are negative or prevent them from taking new directions. Relationship marketing is as much about knowing when to terminate relationships as about how to maintain them (Anderson and Jap 2005 Anderson, E. and Jap, S. 2005. The Dark Side of Relationships. Sloan Management Review, 46(Spring): 75–82. [Google Scholar]).

Many of the estimated thirty-two million Americans expected to gain coverage under the Affordable Care Act are likely to have high levels of unmet need because of various chronic illnesses and to live in areas that are already underserved. In New Mexico an innovative new model of health care education and delivery known as Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) provides high-quality primary and specialty care to a comparable population. Using state-of-the-art telehealth technology and case-based learning, Project ECHO enables specialists at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center to partner with primary care clinicians in underserved areas to deliver complex specialty care to patients with hepatitis C, asthma, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, pediatric obesity, chronic pain, substance use disorders, rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular conditions, and mental illness. As of March 2011, 298 Project ECHO teams across New Mexico have collaborated on more than 10,000 specialty care consultations for hepatitis C and other chronic diseases.

Anticipating the future under the influence of climate change is one of the most important challenges of our time, and the topic of the special section in this issue of Science (see p. 472). The natural systems that provide oxygen, clean water, food, storm and erosion protection, natural products, and the potential for future resources, such as new genetic stocks for cultivation, must be protected, not just because it is part of good stewardship but also so that they can take care of us. But even the first step of modeling the effects of greenhouse gas sources and sinks on future temperatures requires input from atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, ecologists, economists, policy analysts, and others. The problem is even more difficult because the very factors that influence temperature changes, such as ocean circulation and terrestrial ecosystem responses, will themselves be altered as the climate changes.With so many potential climate-sensitive factors to consider, scientists need ways to narrow down the range of possible environmental outcomes so that they know what specific problems to tackle.

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), which plays an important role in neurodevelopmental plasticity and cognitive performance, has been implicated in neuropsychopathology of schizophrenia. We examined the levels of both cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma BDNF concomitantly in drug-naive first-episode psychotic (FEP) subjects with ELISA to determine if these levels were different from control values and if any correlation exists between CSF and plasma BDNF levels. A significant reduction in BDNF protein levels was observed in both plasma and CSF of FEP subjects compared to controls. BDNF levels showed significant negative correlation with the scores of baseline PANSS positive symptom subscales. In addition, there was a significant positive correlation between plasma and CSF BDNF levels in FEP subjects. The parallel changes in BDNF levels in plasma and CSF indicate that plasma BDNF levels reflect the brain changes in BDNF levels in schizophrenia.

This report describes the development of an evidence-based guideline for external hemorrhage control in the prehospital setting. This project included a systematic review of the literature regarding the use of tourniquets and hemostatic agents for management of life-threatening extremity and junctional hemorrhage. Using the GRADE methodology to define the key clinical questions, an expert panel then reviewed the results of the literature review, established the quality of the evidence and made recommendations for EMS care. A clinical care guideline is proposed for adoption by EMS systems. Key words: tourniquet; hemostatic agents; external hemorrhage.

This October, nations will gather in Japan to sign the Minamata convention, a treaty to address the toxic effects of mercury in the environment. The agreement will become binding once ratified by at least 50 nations. The convention is timely and welcome in that it places controls and limitations on products, processes, and industries that increase the level of exposure of people and the environment to mercury, a naturally occurring element. Mercury bioaccumulates in the form of methylmercury, a powerful neurotoxin that can affect wildlife, domestic animals, and humans alike. Symptoms of mercury poisoning can range from numbness in the hands and feet and muscle weakness in mild cases, to insanity and death.