IQ and the association with myopia in children.
(9/105)
PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between intelligence and myopia in children. METHODS: Cycloplegic refraction and ocular biometry parameters, including axial length, vitreous chamber depth, lens thickness, anterior chamber depth, and corneal curvature were obtained in 1204 Chinese school children aged 10 to 12 years from three schools who were participants in the Singapore Cohort Study Of the Risk Factors for Myopia (SCORM). Intelligence quotient (IQ) was assessed using the nonverbal Raven Standard Progressive Matrix test. RESULTS: After controlling for age, gender, school, parental myopia, father's education, and books read per week, myopia (spherical equivalent [SE]) of at least -0.5 D was associated with high nonverbal IQ (highest quartile) versus low IQ (lowest quartile) (odds ratio = 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-3.4). Controlling for the same factors, children with higher nonverbal IQ scores had significantly more myopic refractions (-1.86 D for children with nonverbal IQ in the highest quartile compared with -1.24 D for children with nonverbal IQ in the lowest quartile; P = 0.002) and longer axial lengths (24.06 mm versus 23.80 mm; P = 0.022). Nonverbal IQ accounted for a greater proportion of the variance in refraction compared with books read per week. CONCLUSIONS: Nonverbal IQ may be an independent risk factor of myopia, and this relationship may not be explained merely by increased reading (books per week) among myopes. An interesting observation is that nonverbal IQ may be a stronger risk factor for myopia compared with books read per week. The complexity of the relationships between nonverbal IQ, reading, and myopia warrant additional studies to clarify any cause-effect relationship. (+info)
Self-help books for depression: how can practitioners and patients make the right choice?
(10/105)
BACKGROUND: Depression is a common and important public health problem most often treated by GPs. A self-help approach is popular with patients, yet little is known about its effectiveness. AIM: Our primary aim was to review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of bibliotherapy in the treatment of depression. Our secondary aim was to identify which of these self-help materials are generally available to buy and to examine the evidence specific to these publications. METHOD: Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CCTR, PsiTri and the National Research Register were searched for randomised trials that evaluated self-help books for depression which included participants aged over 16 years with a diagnosis or symptoms of depression. Clinical symptoms, quality of life, costs or acceptability to users were the required outcome measures. Papers were obtained and data extracted independently by two researchers. A meta-analysis using a random effects model was carried out using the mean score and standard deviation of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression at the endpoint of the trial. RESULTS: Eleven randomised controlled trials were identified. None fulfilled CONSORT guidelines and all were small, with the largest trial having 40 patients per group. Nine of these evaluated two current publications, Managing Anxiety and Depression (UK) and Feeling Good (US). A meta-analysis of 6 trials evaluating Feeling Good found a large treatment effect compared to delayed treatment (standardised mean difference = -1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.76 to -0.96). Five self-help books were identified as being available and commonly bought by members of the public in addition to the two books that had been evaluated in trials. CONCLUSION: There are a number of self-help books for the treatment of depression readily available. For the majority, there is little direct evidence for their effectiveness. There is weak evidence that suggests that bibliotherapy, based on a cognitive behavioural therapy approach is useful for some people when they are given some additional guidance. More work is required in primary care to investigate the cost-effectiveness of self-help and the most suitable format and presentation of materials. (+info)
Hairpins in bookstacks: information retrieval from biomedical text.
(11/105)
Current advances in high-throughput biology are accompanied by a tremendous increase in the number of related publications. Much biomedical information is reported in the vast amount of literature. The ability to rapidly and effectively survey the literature is necessary for both the design and the interpretation of large-scale experiments, and for curation of structured biomedical knowledge in public databases. Given the millions of published documents, the field of information retrieval, which is concerned with the automatic identification of relevant documents from large text collections, has much to offer. This paper introduces the basics of information retrieval, discusses its applications in biomedicine, and presents traditional and non-traditional ways in which it can be used. (+info)
Text mining and ontologies in biomedicine: making sense of raw text.
(12/105)
The volume of biomedical literature is increasing at such a rate that it is becoming difficult to locate, retrieve and manage the reported information without text mining, which aims to automatically distill information, extract facts, discover implicit links and generate hypotheses relevant to user needs. Ontologies, as conceptual models, provide the necessary framework for semantic representation of textual information. The principal link between text and an ontology is terminology, which maps terms to domain-specific concepts. This paper summarises different approaches in which ontologies have been used for text-mining applications in biomedicine. (+info)
Injury prevention advice in top-selling parenting books.
(13/105)
OBJECTIVE: Parenting books are a commonly used source of information on how to keep children and adolescents safe from injuries, the leading cause of death and disability for children aged 1 to 18 years. The content and the quality of the messages contained in these books have not been evaluated formally. The objective of this study was to determine the quantity and the quality of injury prevention messages contained in popular parenting books. METHODS: Top-selling parenting books for 2 major booksellers were reviewed to determine the presence and the accuracy of injury prevention messages as compared with those recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) through The Injury Prevention Program (TIPP) for younger children, aged 0 to 12 years, and the American Medical Association (AMA) through its Parent Package for the safety of adolescents. RESULTS: Forty-six parenting books were reviewed, including 41 with messages related to younger children and 19 with messages related to adolescents. These books varied widely with regard to the number of injury prevention messages included. Although some books covered the great majority of TIPP messages for parents of young children, others included very few. In the case of books that address safety for adolescents, no book had more than half of the messages recommended by the AMA. Prevention of burns and motor vehicle injury were the most commonly addressed injury prevention topics in the books focused on younger children, whereas gun safety was the most prevalent injury prevention topic in books that focused on adolescents. Books that were authored by physicians addressed more of the recommended topics and messages than books that were written by authors from other professional backgrounds. The quality of messages was good, ie, consistent with the advice given by the AAP and the AMA. In only a few cases, the parenting books gave injury prevention advice that was inconsistent with recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, books on parenting adolescents are less likely to contain injury prevention messages than those that address younger children. However, the most frequent injury prevention messages for parents of adolescents describe strategies to prevent firearm injury, a leading cause of death for children in this age group. More emphasis should be placed on prevention of motor vehicle injuries, especially as relates to adolescents. Pediatricians and primary care physicians need to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of parenting manuals in providing adequate guidance related to injury prevention. (+info)
BRIEF REPORT: nutrition and weight loss information in a popular diet book: is it fact, fiction, or something in between?
(14/105)
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Diet books dominate the New York Times Advice Best Seller list and consumers cite such books as an important source of nutrition information. However, the scientific support for nutrition claims presented as fact (nutrition facts) in diet books is not known. DESIGN/MEASUREMENTS: We assessed the quality of nutrition facts in the best-selling South Beach Diet using support in peer-reviewed literature as a measure of quality. We performed structured literature searches on nutrition facts located in the books' text, and then assigned each fact to 1 of 4 categories (1) fact supported, (2) fact not supported, (3) fact both supported and not supported, and (4) no related papers. A panel of expert reviewers adjudicated the findings. RESULTS: Forty-two nutrition facts were included. Fourteen (33%) facts were supported, 7 (17%) were not supported, 18 (43%) were both supported and not supported, and 3 (7%) had no related papers, including the fact that the diet had been "scientifically studied and proven effective." CONCLUSIONS: Consumers obtain nutrition information from diet books. We found that over 67% of nutrition facts in a best-seller diet book may not be supported in the peer-reviewed literature. These findings have important implications for educating consumers about nutrition information sources. (+info)
Book citations: influence of epidemiologic thought in the academic community.
(15/105)
Whilst their 'death' has often been certified, books remain highly important to most professions and academic disciplines. Analyses of citations received by epidemiologic texts may complement other views on epidemiology. The objective was to assess the number of citations received by some books of epidemiology and public health, as a first step towards studying the influence of epidemiological thought and thinking in academia. For this purpose, Institute for Scientific Information/ Thomson Scientific - Web of Science/ Web of Knowledgedatabase was consulted, in May 2006. The book by Rothman & Greenland appeared to have received the highest number of citations overall (over 8,000) and per year. The books by Kleinbaum et al, and by Breslow & Day received around 5,000 citations. In terms of citations per year the book by Sackett et al ranks 3rd, and the one by Rose, 4th of those included in this preliminary study. Other books which were influential in the classrooms collected comparatively less citations. Results offer a rich picture of the academic influences and trends of epidemiologic methods and reasoning on public health, clinical medicine and the other health, life and social sciences. They may contribute to assess epidemiologists' efforts to demarcate epidemiology and to assert epistemic authority, and to analyze some historical influences of economic, social and political forces on epidemiological research. (+info)
Global bioethics -- myth or reality?
(16/105)
BACKGROUND: There has been debate on whether a global or unified field of bioethics exists. If bioethics is a unified global field, or at the very least a closely shared way of thinking, then we should expect bioethicists to behave the same way in their academic activities anywhere in the world. This paper investigates whether there is a 'global bioethics' in the sense of a unified academic community. METHODS: To address this question, we study the web-linking patterns of bioethics institutions, the citation patterns of bioethics papers and the buying patterns of bioethics books. RESULTS: All three analyses indicate that there are geographical and institutional differences in the academic behavior of bioethicists and bioethics institutions. CONCLUSION: These exploratory studies support the position that there is no unified global field of bioethics. This is a problem if the only reason is parochialism. But these regional differences are probably of less concern if one notices that bioethics comes in many not always mutually understandable dialects. (+info)