@article{FarmerStrzelczykFinisguerraetal.2021,
  author    = {Farmer, Adam D. and Strzelczyk, Adam and Finisguerra, Alessandra and Gourine, Alexander V. and Gharabaghi, Alireza and Hasan, Alkomiet and Burger, Andreas M. and Jaramillo, Andr{\´e}s M. and Mertens, Ann and Majid, Arshad and Verkuil, Bart and Badran, Bashar W. and Ventura-Bort, Carlos and Gaul, Charly and Beste, Christian and Warren, Christopher M. and Quintana, Daniel S. and H{\"a}mmerer, Dorothea and Freri, Elena and Frangos, Eleni and Tobaldini, Eleonora and Kaniusas, Eugenijus and Rosenow, Felix and Capone, Fioravante and Panetsos, Fivos and Ackland, Gareth L. and Kaithwas, Gaurav and O'Leary, Georgia H. and Genheimer, Hannah and Jacobs, Heidi I. L. and Van Diest, Ilse and Schoenen, Jean and Redgrave, Jessica and Fang, Jiliang and Deuchars, Jim and Sz{\´e}les, Jozsef C. and Thayer, Julian F. and More, Kaushik and Vonck, Kristl and Steenbergen, Laura and Vianna, Lauro C. and McTeague, Lisa M. and Ludwig, Mareike and Veldhuizen, Maria G. and De Couck, Marijke and Casazza, Marina and Keute, Marius and Bikson, Marom and Andreatta, Marta and D'Agostini, Martina and Weymar, Mathias and Betts, Matthew and Prigge, Matthias and Kaess, Michael and Roden, Michael and Thai, Michelle and Schuster, Nathaniel M. and Montano, Nicola and Hansen, Niels and Kroemer, Nils B. and Rong, Peijing and Fischer, Rico and Howland, Robert H. and Sclocco, Roberta and Sellaro, Roberta and Garcia, Ronald G. and Bauer, Sebastian and Gancheva, Sofiya and Stavrakis, Stavros and Kampusch, Stefan and Deuchars, Susan A. and Wehner, Sven and Laborde, Sylvain and Usichenko, Taras and Polak, Thomas and Zaehle, Tino and Borges, Uirassu and Teckentrup, Vanessa and Jandackova, Vera K. and Napadow, Vitaly and Koenig, Julian},
  title     = {International Consensus Based Review and Recommendations for Minimum Reporting Standards in Research on Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation (Version 2020)},
  series = {Frontiers in Human Neuroscience},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Human Neuroscience},
  issn      = {1662-5161},
  doi       = {10.3389/fnhum.2020.568051},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-234346},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Given its non-invasive nature, there is increasing interest in the use of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) across basic, translational and clinical research. Contemporaneously, tVNS can be achieved by stimulating either the auricular branch or the cervical bundle of the vagus nerve, referred to as transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation(VNS) and transcutaneous cervical VNS, respectively. In order to advance the field in a systematic manner, studies using these technologies need to adequately report sufficient methodological detail to enable comparison of results between studies, replication of studies, as well as enhancing study participant safety. We systematically reviewed the existing tVNS literature to evaluate current reporting practices. Based on this review, and consensus among participating authors, we propose a set of minimal reporting items to guide future tVNS studies. The suggested items address specific technical aspects of the device and stimulation parameters. We also cover general recommendations including inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants, outcome parameters and the detailed reporting of side effects. Furthermore, we review strategies used to identify the optimal stimulation parameters for a given research setting and summarize ongoing developments in animal research with potential implications for the application of tVNS in humans. Finally, we discuss the potential of tVNS in future research as well as the associated challenges across several disciplines in research and clinical practice.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{LawitschkaBrunmairBaueretal.2021,
  author    = {Lawitschka, Anita and Brunmair, Matthias and Bauer, Dorothea and Zubarovskaya, Natalia and Felder-Puig, Rosemarie and Strahm, Brigitte and Bader, Peter and Strauss, Gabriele and Albert, Michael and Luettichau, Irene von and Greinix, Hildegard and Wolff, Daniel and Peters, Christina},
  title     = {Psychometric properties of the Activities Scale for Kids-performance after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in adolescents and children},
  series = {Wiener klinische Wochenschrift},
  volume    = {133},
  journal   = {Wiener klinische Wochenschrift},
  number    = {1-2},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00508-020-01641-w},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-281100},
  pages     = {41-51},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background The psychometric properties of an instrument, the Activity Scale for Kids-performance (ASKp), were assessed which was proposed to capture physical functioning after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Additionally, this multicenter observational prospective study investigated the influence of clinical correlates focusing on chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD). Methods Patient-reported ASKp, clinician-reported Karnofsky/Lansky status (KPS/PSS), patient characteristics and cGVHD details were assessed of 55 patients with a median age of 12 years at baseline after day +100 post-HSCT and every 3 months during the next 18 months. The psychometric properties were evaluated and ASKp and KPS/PSS status was compared using ANOVAS and multiple regression models. Results The German version of the ASKp showed good psychometric properties except for ceiling effects. Discrimination ability of the ASKp was good regarding the need for devices but failed to predict cGVHD patients. Both the ASKp and the KPS/PSS were associated with patients after adoptive cell therapy being in need for devices, suffering from overlap cGVHD and from steroid side effects but not with patients' age and gender. In contrast to the KPS/PSS the ASKp only showed significant differences after merging moderate and severe cGHVD patients when comparing them to No-cGVHD (F = 4.050; p = 0.049), being outperformed by the KPS/PSS (F = 20.082; p < 0.001). Conclusion The ASKp showed no clear advantages compared to KPS/PSS even though economical and patients' effort was higher. Further application range may be limited through ceiling effects. Both should be taken into consideration. Therefore, the results may not support the usage of ASKp after HSCT and rather suggest KPS/PSS, both patient and clinician reported.},
  language  = {en}
}