\n\nConclusion: We believe that the results of so large a number of participants in this test will make an obvious contribution to the medical literature. (Am J Rhinol Allergy 23, 300-302, 2009; doi: 10.2500/ajra.2009.23.3312)”
“Background:

Structured reporting of major incidents has been advocated to improve the care provided at future incidents. A systematic review identified ten existing templates for reporting major incident medical management, but these templates are not in widespread use. We aimed to address this challenge by designing an open access template for uniform reporting of data from pre-hospital major incident medical management that will be tested for feasibility.\n\nMethods: An expert group of thirteen European major incident practitioners, planners or academics participated in a four stage modified nominal group technique consensus process to design a novel reporting template. Initially, each expert proposed 30 variables. find more Secondly, these

proposals were combined and each expert prioritized 45 variables from the total of 270. Thirdly, the expert group met in Norway to develop the template. Lastly, revisions to the final template were agreed via e-mail.\n\nResults: The consensus AZD1480 manufacturer process resulted in a template consisting of 48 variables divided into six categories; pre-incident data, Emergency Medical Service (EMS) background, incident characteristics, EMS response, patient characteristics and key lessons.\n\nConclusions: The expert group reached consensus on a set of key variables to report the medical management of pre-hospital major incidents and developed a novel reporting template. The template will be freely available for downloading and reporting on www.majorincidentreporting.org.

This is the first global open access database for pre-hospital major incident reporting. The use of a uniform dataset will allow comparative analysis and has potential to identify check details areas of improvement for future responses.”
“Late-onset and early-onset Alzheimer’s disease (LOAD, EOAD) affect different neural systems and may be separate nosographic entities. The most striking differences are in the medial temporal lobe, severely affected in LOAD and relatively spared in EOAD. We assessed amygdalar morphology and volume in 18 LOAD and 18 EOAD patients and 36 aged-matched controls and explored their relationship with the hippocampal volume. Three-dimensional amygdalar shape was reconstructed with the radial atrophy mapping technique, hippocampal volume was measured using a manual method. Atrophy was greater in LOAD than EOAD: 25% versus 17% in the amygdala and 20% versus 13% in the hippocampus. In the amygdala, LOAD showed significantly greater tissue loss than EOAD in the right dorsal central, lateral, and basolateral nuclei (20%-30% loss, p smaller than 0.03), all known to be connected to limbic regions.