University of South Australia

About: University of South Australia is a education organization based out in Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 10086 authors who have published 32587 publications receiving 913683 citations. The organization is also known as: The University of South Australia & UniSA.

Highly Regenerable Mussel-Inspired Fe3O4@Polydopamine-Ag Core–Shell Microspheres as Catalyst and Adsorbent for Methylene Blue Removal

Abstract: We report a facile method to synthesize Fe3O4@polydopamine (PDA)-Ag core–shell microspheres. Ag nanoparticles (NPs) are deposited on PDA surfaces via in situ reduction by mussel-inspired PDA layers. High catalytic activity and fast adsorption of a model dye methylene blue (MB) at different pH values are achieved mainly due to the presence of monodisperse Ag NPs and electrostatic interactions between PDA and MB. The as-prepared Fe3O4@PDA-Ag microspheres also show high cyclic stability (>27 cycles), good acid stability, and fast regeneration ability, which can be achieved efficiently within several minutes by using NaBH4 as the desorption agent, showing great potentials in a wide range of applications.

Iterative multiuser detection for CDMA with FEC: near-single-user performance

Abstract: This paper introduces an iterative multiuser receiver for direct sequence code-division multiple access (DS-CDMA) with forward error control (FEC) coding. The receiver is derived from the maximum a posteriori (MAP) criterion for the joint received signal, but uses only single-user decoders. Iterations of the system are used to improve performance, with dramatic effects. Single-user turbo code decoders are utilized as the FEC system and a complexity study is presented. Simulation results show that the performance approaches single-user performance even for moderate signal-to-noise ratios.

Vestibular rehabilitation for unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction

Abstract: Background This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 4, 2007 and previously updated in 2011. Unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction (UPVD) can occur as a result of disease, trauma or postoperatively. The dysfunction is characterised by complaints of dizziness, visual or gaze disturbances and balance impairment. Current management includes medication, physical manoeuvres and exercise regimes, the latter known collectively as vestibular rehabilitation. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of vestibular rehabilitation in the adult, community-dwelling population of people with symptomatic unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ISRCTN and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The most recent search was 18 January 2014. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of adults living in the community, diagnosed with symptomatic unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction. We sought comparisons of vestibular rehabilitation versus control (e.g. placebo), other treatment (non-vestibular rehabilitation, e.g. pharmacological) or another form of vestibular rehabilitation. Our primary outcome measure was change in the specified symptomatology (for example, proportion with dizziness resolved, frequency or severity of dizziness). Secondary outcomes were measures of function, quality of life and/or measure(s) of physiological status, where reproducibility has been confirmed and shown to be relevant or related to health status (for example, posturography), and adverse effects Data collection and analysis We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Main results We included 39 studies involving 2441 participants with unilateral peripheral vestibular disorders in the review. Trials addressed the effectiveness of vestibular rehabilitation against control/sham interventions, medical interventions or other forms of vestibular rehabilitation. Non-blinding of outcome assessors and selective reporting were threats that may have biased the results in 25% of studies, but otherwise there was a low risk of selection or attrition bias. Individual and pooled analyses of the primary outcome, frequency of dizziness, showed a statistically significant effect in favour of vestibular rehabilitation over control or no intervention (odds ratio (OR) 2.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85 to 3.86; four studies, 565 participants). Secondary outcomes measures related to levels of activity or participation measured, for example, with the Dizziness Handicap Inventory, which also showed a strong trend towards significant differences between the groups (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.83, 95% CI -1.02 to -0.64). The exception to this was when movement-based vestibular rehabilitation was compared to physical manoeuvres for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), where the latter was shown to be superior in cure rate in the short term (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49). There were no reported adverse effects. Authors' conclusions There is moderate to strong evidence that vestibular rehabilitation is a safe, effective management for unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction, based on a number of high-quality randomised controlled trials. There is moderate evidence that vestibular rehabilitation resolves symptoms and improves functioning in the medium term. However, there is evidence that for the specific diagnostic group of BPPV, physical (repositioning) manoeuvres are more effective in the short term than exercise-based vestibular rehabilitation; although a combination of the two is effective for longer-term functional recovery. There is insufficient evidence to discriminate between differing forms of vestibular rehabilitation.