Queen's University Belfast

About: Queen's University Belfast is a education organization based out in Belfast, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 25457 authors who have published 55463 publications receiving 1751346 citations. The organization is also known as: Queen's College, Belfast & Queen's College.

Chloroplast microsatellites: new tools for studies in plant ecology and evolution

Abstract: The nonrecombinant, uniparentally inherited nature of organelle genomes makes them useful tools for evolutionary studies. However, in plants, detecting useful polymorphism at the population level is often difficult because of the low level of substitutions in the chloroplast genome, and because of the slow substitution rates and intramolecular recombination of mtDNA. Chloroplast microsatellites represent potentially useful markers to circumvent this problem and, to date, studies have demonstrated high levels of intraspecific variability. Here, we discuss the use of these markers in ecological and evolutionary studies of plants, as well as highlighting some of the potential problems associated with such use.

Discussion: Reporting and calibration of post-bomb 14C data

Abstract: The definitive paper by Stuiver and Polach (1977) established the conventions for reporting of {sup 14}C data for chronological and geophysical studies based on the radioactive decay of {sup 14}C in the sample since the year of sample death or formation. Several ways of reporting {sup 14}C activity levels relative to a standard were also established, but no specific instructions were given for reporting nuclear weapons testing (post-bomb) {sup 14}C levels in samples. Because the use of post-bomb {sup 14}C is becoming more prevalent in forensics, biology, and geosciences, a convention needs to be adopted. We advocate the use of fraction modern with a new symbol F{sup 14}C to prevent confusion with the previously used Fm, which may or may not have been fractionation corrected. We also discuss the calibration of post-bomb {sup 14}C samples and the available datasets and compilations, but do not give a recommendation for a particular dataset.

Alternatives to antibiotics—a pipeline portfolio review

Abstract: Antibiotics have saved countless lives and enabled the development of modern medicine over the past 70 years. However, it is clear that the success of antibiotics might only have been temporary and we now expect a long-term and perhaps never-ending challenge to find new therapies to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. A broader approach to address bacterial infection is needed. In this Review, we discuss alternatives to antibiotics, which we defined as non-compound approaches (products other than classic antibacterial agents) that target bacteria or any approaches that target the host. The most advanced approaches are antibodies, probiotics, and vaccines in phase 2 and phase 3 trials. This first wave of alternatives to antibiotics will probably best serve as adjunctive or preventive therapies, which suggests that conventional antibiotics are still needed. Funding of more than £1·5 billion is needed over 10 years to test and develop these alternatives to antibiotics. Investment needs to be partnered with translational expertise and targeted to support the validation of these approaches in phase 2 trials, which would be a catalyst for active engagement and investment by the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry. Only a sustained, concerted, and coordinated international effort will provide the solutions needed for the future.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

Abstract: Background Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing. Objectives This review sought to determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people. Search methods In November 2013, for this first update, a range of literature databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched, and handsearching of reference lists was performed. Search terms included 'polypharmacy', 'medication appropriateness' and 'inappropriate prescribing'. Selection criteria A range of study designs were eligible. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people 65 years of age and older in which a validated measure of appropriateness was used (e.g. Beers criteria, Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI)). Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Study-specific estimates were pooled, and a random-effects model was used to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the overall quality of evidence for each pooled outcome. Main results Two studies were added to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 12. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support; 11 complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical approaches to interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals, such as prescribers and pharmacists. Appropriateness of prescribing was measured using validated tools, including the MAI score post intervention (eight studies), Beers criteria (four studies), STOPP criteria (two studies) and START criteria (one study). Interventions included in this review resulted in a reduction in inappropriate medication usage. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall quality of evidence for all pooled outcomes ranged from very low to low. A greater reduction in MAI scores between baseline and follow-up was seen in the intervention group when compared with the control group (four studies; mean difference -6.78, 95% CI -12.34 to -1.22). Postintervention pooled data showed a lower summated MAI score (five studies; mean difference -3.88, 95% CI -5.40 to -2.35) and fewer Beers drugs per participant (two studies; mean difference -0.1, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.09) in the intervention group compared with the control group. Evidence of the effects of interventions on hospital admissions (five studies) and of medication-related problems (six studies) was conflicting. Authors' conclusions It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as pharmaceutical care, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they appear beneficial in terms of reducing inappropriate prescribing.