FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

MEPs elicited by multidirectional rotational-field TMS show marked differences compared to unidirectional Figure-of-8 and H7 coils

by Orit Wonderman Bar Sela, Shay Ofir Geva, Gaby S. Pell, Yiftach Roth, Jason Friedman, Afnan Muhana, Silvi Frenkel-Toledo, Nachum Soroker

Unidirectional transcranial magnetic stimulation (udTMS; e.g., via Figure-of-8 coil) depolarizes mainly neurons whose axonal orientation aligns with the direction of the induced electric field. A novel dual H-coil (T360°) TMS system (BrainsWayTM, Israel) generates a rotational magnetic field aimed to recruit a larger neuronal population by induction of a multidirectional electric field (rfTMS). This study aimed to comparatively assess the neurophysiological properties of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited from the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle following udTMS (via Figure-of-8 and H7 coils) vs. multidirectional rfTMS. In this study, 10 healthy adult subjects received TMS via the three coil configurations in a random order. The results showed that rfTMS elicited larger MEPs at a lower resting motor threshold (rMT) compared to the unidirectional coils. These findings suggest that rfTMS is likely to recruit larger populations of neurons compared to conventional udTMS coil configurations. This may be advantageous in efforts to enhance motor recovery following brain damage by treatments using TMS.

Reducing decisional conflict in COVID-19 vaccination in ethnocultural communities through sensemaking: a participatory action mixed-methods study

Objective

To examine how cultural health brokers, as trusted intermediaries between formal systems and diverse ethnocultural communities, help navigate decisional conflict and misinformation regarding COVID-19 vaccination and to identify how their work contributes to system resilience in crisis contexts.

Design

A community-based participatory action sensemaking research project to capture the real-time work of cultural health brokers in helping people navigate decisional conflict for vaccination.

Setting, participants

Multicultural Health Broker Cooperative in Edmonton, Alberta where brokers speak 54 languages and serve more than 10 000 people from diverse ethnolinguistic communities. 28 cultural health brokers (9 male; experience 4–25 years) contributed to data collection and analysis between 16 September 2021 and 16 December 2021.

Data collection and analysis

The brokers captured real-time reflections and self-interpretations in the SenseMaker platform through a theoretically informed, codesigned, mixed-method data collection tool. The team engaged in 13 weekly, 90 minute, audio-recorded and transcribed sessions: seven focused on understanding and action planning and five reflecting on the SenseMaker data, the focus of the thematic analysis. Data were managed in NVivo (QSR International, Version 12, 2018).

Results

Brokers collected 277 narratives and conducted 13 sensemaking sessions. Understanding and purpose were identified in 68% of narratives as key to achieving coherence; 81% of narratives highlighted trust as crucial to what was needed for action; 62% of narratives reflected on a potential risk, with loss of trust a concern in 70% of them. A rich understanding of the sources of decisional conflict and misinformation was achieved and managed through outreach. There were four entwined components to navigation of the evolving complexity of COVID-19 vaccination: (1) building and sustaining trust; (2) strengthening relationships; (3) creating safe spaces for collective sensemaking and solution finding; and (4) leveraging cultural and social capital to address barriers. Through these mechanisms, brokers reduced decisional conflict and misinformation, supporting informed, values-congruent decisions.

Conclusions

Cultural health brokers, embedded within communities and linked to formal systems, play a critical role in crisis response by fostering trust, mobilising resources and enabling collective sensemaking. This study demonstrates how these intermediaries’ contextually and culturally attuned work provides a model for building system resilience for future crisis response.

Clinical evaluation of adults undergoing elective surgery utilizing intraoperative incisional wound irrigation (CLEAN Wound): protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Por: Roke · R. · Lillie · E. · Daneman · N. · Mason · S. A. · Tomlinson · G. · Jiang · Y. · Shiroky · J. · Puran · S. · Smith · D. E. · Abou Khalil · J. · Kayssi · A. · Serrano · P. E. · Pinchuk · B. · Apte · S. S. · Lamb · T. · Ma · G. · Vogt · K. · Leslie · K. · Mutabdzic · D. · Gomez · D. · Ladh
Introduction

In moderate to high-risk surgical procedures, 15–25% of patients develop a postoperative surgical site infection. Intraoperative incisional wound irrigation has the potential to reduce surgical site infections, and additional randomised controlled trials are required to provide evidence of effectiveness.

Methods and analysis

This protocol describes a pragmatic, adaptive, participant and adjudicator-blinded trial at 13 sites in Canada in up to 2500 participants. Participants planned for surgery with an abdominal or groin incision, who are eligible and provide verbal consent through an integrated consent model, are randomised to receive intraoperative incisional wound irrigation with povidone-iodine, saline or no irrigation. The primary outcome is surgical site infection within 30 days postoperatively. Secondary outcomes include quality of life measured 30 days postoperatively and morbidity, mortality and healthcare utilisation within 90 days postoperatively.

Ethics and dissemination

This trial has been approved by the research ethics board at the participating centres and stopped enrolling participants on May 23, 2025. All participants will provide verbal consent. Results will be disseminated via presentation at conferences, publication and posted on clinicaltrials.gov.

Trial registration number

The study is registered with http://clinicaltrial.gov (NCT04548661; 14 September 2020).

❌