@article{GrubeKoenneckeWalteretal.2013, author = {Grube, Maike Miriam and Koennecke, Hans-Christian and Walter, Georg and Meisel, Andreas and Sobesky, Jan and Nolte, Christian Hans and Wellwood, Ian and Heuschmann, Peter Ulrich}, title = {Influence of Acute Complications on Outcome 3 Months after Ischemic Stroke}, series = {PLOS ONE}, volume = {8}, journal = {PLOS ONE}, number = {9}, issn = {1932-6203}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0075719}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-128362}, pages = {e75719}, year = {2013}, abstract = {Background: Early medical complications are potentially modifiable factors influencing in-hospital outcome. We investigated the influence of acute complications on mortality and poor outcome 3 months after ischemic stroke. Methods: Data were obtained from patients admitted to one of 13 stroke units of the Berlin Stroke Registry (BSR) who participated in a 3-months-follow up between June 2010 and September 2012. We examined the influence of the cumulative number of early in-hospital complications on mortality and poor outcome (death, disability or institutionalization) 3 months after stroke using multivariable logistic regression analyses and calculated attributable fractions to determine the impact of early complications on mortality and poor outcome. Results: A total of 2349 ischemic stroke patients alive at discharge from acute care were included in the analysis. Older age, stroke severity, pre-stroke dependency and early complications were independent predictors of mortality 3 months after stroke. Poor outcome was independently associated with older age, stroke severity, pre-stroke dependency, previous stroke and early complications. More than 60\% of deaths and poor outcomes were attributed to age, pre-stroke dependency and stroke severity and in-hospital complications contributed to 12.3\% of deaths and 9.1\% of poor outcomes 3 months after stroke. Conclusion: The majority of deaths and poor outcomes after stroke were attributed to non-modifiable factors. However, early in-hospital complications significantly affect outcome in patients who survived the acute phase after stroke, underlining the need to improve prevention and treatment of complications in hospital.}, language = {en} } @article{BorchersMuellerSynofziketal.2013, author = {Borchers, Svenja and M{\"u}ller, Laura and Synofzik, Matthis and Himmelbach, Marc}, title = {Guidelines and quality measures for the diagnosis of optic ataxia}, series = {Frontiers in Human Neuroscience}, volume = {7}, journal = {Frontiers in Human Neuroscience}, number = {324}, issn = {1662-5161}, doi = {10.3389/fnhum.2013.00324}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-122439}, year = {2013}, abstract = {Since the first description of a systematic mis-reaching by Balint in 1909, a reasonable number of patients showing a similar phenomenology, later termed optic ataxia (OA), has been described. However, there is surprising inconsistency regarding the behavioral measures that are used to detect OA in experimental and clinical reports, if the respective measures are reported at all. A typical screening method that was presumably used by most researchers and clinicians, reaching for a target object in the peripheral visual space, has never been evaluated. We developed a set of instructions and evaluation criteria for the scoring of a semi-standardized version of this reaching task. We tested 36 healthy participants, a group of 52 acute and chronic stroke patients, and 24 patients suffering from cerebellar ataxia. We found a high interrater reliability and a moderate test-retest reliability comparable to other clinical instruments in the stroke sample. The calculation of cut-off thresholds based on healthy control and cerebellar patient data showed an unexpected high number of false positives in these samples due to individual outliers that made a considerable number of errors in peripheral reaching. This study provides first empirical data from large control and patient groups for a screening procedure that seems to be widely used but rarely explicitly reported and prepares the grounds for its use as a standard tool for the description of patients who are included in single case or group studies addressing optic ataxia similar to the use of neglect, extinction, or apraxia screening tools.}, language = {en} } @article{ManchiaAdliAkulaetal.2013, author = {Manchia, Mirko and Adli, Mazda and Akula, Nirmala and Arda, Raffaella and Aubry, Jean-Michel and Backlund, Lena and Banzato, Claudio E. M. and Baune, Bernhard T. and Bellivier, Frank and Bengesser, Susanne and Biernacka, Joanna M. and Brichant-Petitjean, Clara and Bui, Elise and Calkin, Cynthia V. and Cheng, Andrew Tai Ann and Chillotti, Caterina and Cichon, Sven and Clark, Scott and Czerski, Piotr M. and Dantas, Clarissa and Del Zompo, Maria and DePaulo, J. Raymond and Detera-Wadleigh, Sevilla D. and Etain, Bruno and Falkai, Peter and Fris{\´e}n, Louise and Frye, Mark A. and Fullerton, Jan and Gard, S{\´e}bastien and Garnham, Julie and Goes, Fernando S. and Grof, Paul and Gruber, Oliver and Hashimoto, Ryota and Hauser, Joanna and Heilbronner, Urs and Hoban, Rebecca and Hou, Liping and Jamain, St{\´e}phane and Kahn, Jean-Pierre and Kassem, Layla and Kato, Tadafumi and Kelsoe, John R. and Kittel-Schneider, Sarah and Kliwicki, Sebastian and Kuo, Po-Hsiu and Kusumi, Ichiro and Laje, Gonzalo and Lavebratt, Catharina and Leboyer, Marion and Leckband, Susan G. and L{\´o}pez Jaramillo, Carlos A. and Maj, Mario and Malafosse, Alain and Martinsson, Lina and Masui, Takuya and Mitchell, Philip B. and Mondimore, Frank and Monteleone, Palmiero and Nallet, Audrey and Neuner, Maria and Nov{\´a}k, Tom{\´a}s and O'Donovan, Claire and {\"O}sby, Urban and Ozaki, Norio and Perlis, Roy H. and Pfennig, Andrea and Potash, James B. and Reich-Erkelenz, Daniela and Reif, Andreas and Reininghaus, Eva and Richardson, Sara and Rouleau, Guy A. and Rybakowski, Janusz K. and Schalling, Martin and Schofield, Peter R. and Schubert, Oliver K. and Schweizer, Barbara and Seem{\"u}ller, Florian and Grigoroiu-Serbanescu, Maria and Severino, Giovanni and Seymour, Lisa R. and Slaney, Claire and Smoller, Jordan W. and Squassina, Alessio and Stamm, Thomas and Steele, Jo and Stopkova, Pavla and Tighe, Sarah K. and Tortorella, Alfonso and Turecki, Gustavo and Wray, Naomi R. and Wright, Adam and Zandi, Peter P. and Zilles, David and Bauer, Michael and Rietschel, Marcella and McMahon, Francis J. and Schulze, Thomas G. and Alda, Martin}, title = {Assessment of Response to Lithium Maintenance Treatment in Bipolar Disorder: A Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) Report}, series = {PLoS ONE}, volume = {8}, journal = {PLoS ONE}, number = {6}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0065636}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-130938}, pages = {e65636}, year = {2013}, abstract = {Objective: The assessment of response to lithium maintenance treatment in bipolar disorder (BD) is complicated by variable length of treatment, unpredictable clinical course, and often inconsistent compliance. Prospective and retrospective methods of assessment of lithium response have been proposed in the literature. In this study we report the key phenotypic measures of the "Retrospective Criteria of Long-Term Treatment Response in Research Subjects with Bipolar Disorder" scale currently used in the Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) study. Materials and Methods: Twenty-nine ConLiGen sites took part in a two-stage case-vignette rating procedure to examine inter-rater agreement [Kappa (\(\kappa\))] and reliability [intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)] of lithium response. Annotated first-round vignettes and rating guidelines were circulated to expert research clinicians for training purposes between the two stages. Further, we analyzed the distributional properties of the treatment response scores available for 1,308 patients using mixture modeling. Results: Substantial and moderate agreement was shown across sites in the first and second sets of vignettes (\(\kappa\) = 0.66 and \(\kappa\) = 0.54, respectively), without significant improvement from training. However, definition of response using the A score as a quantitative trait and selecting cases with B criteria of 4 or less showed an improvement between the two stages (\(ICC_1 = 0.71\) and \(ICC_2 = 0.75\), respectively). Mixture modeling of score distribution indicated three subpopulations (full responders, partial responders, non responders). Conclusions: We identified two definitions of lithium response, one dichotomous and the other continuous, with moderate to substantial inter-rater agreement and reliability. Accurate phenotypic measurement of lithium response is crucial for the ongoing ConLiGen pharmacogenomic study.}, language = {en} }