Explore the vast range of titles available.

Given the crucial role of eyewitness evidence, statements should be obtained as soon as possible after an incident. This is not always achieved due to demands on police resources. Two studies trace the development of a new tool, the Self-Administered Interview (SAI), designed to elicit a comprehensive initial statement. In Study 1, SAI participants reported more correct details than participants who provided a free recall account, and performed at the same level as participants given a Cognitive Interview. In Study 2, participants viewed a simulated crime and half recorded their statement using the SAI. After a delay of 1 week, all participants completed a free recall test. SAI participants recalled more correct details in the delayed recall task than control participants.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Despite many publications about cerebral cavernous malformations (CCMs), controversy remains regarding diagnostic and management strategies. OBJECTIVE: To develop guidelines for CCM management. METHODS: The Angioma Alliance (www.angioma.org), the patient support group in the United States advocating on behalf of patients and research in CCM, convened a multidisciplinary writing group comprising expert CCM clinicians to help summarize the existing literature related to the clinical care of CCM, focusing on 5 topics: (1) epidemiology and natural history, (2) genetic testing and counseling, (3) diagnostic criteria and radiology standards, (4) neurosurgical considerations, and (5) neurological considerations. The group reviewed literature, rated evidence, developed recommendations, and established consensus, controversies, and knowledge gaps according to a prespecified protocol. RESULTS: Of 1270 publications published between January 1, 1983 and September 31, 2014, we selected 98 based on methodological criteria, and identified 38 additional recent or relevant publications. Topic authors used these publications to summarize current knowledge and arrive at 23 consensus management recommendations, which we rated by class (size of effect) and level (estimate of certainty) according to the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association criteria. No recommendation was level A (because of the absence of randomized controlled trials), 11 (48%) were level B, and 12 (52%) were level C. Recommendations were class I in 8 (35%), class II in 10 (43%), and class III in 5 (22%). CONCLUSION: Current evidence supports recommendations for the management of CCM, but their generally low levels and classes mandate further research to better inform clinical practice and update these recommendations. The complete recommendations document, including the criteria for selecting reference citations, a more detailed justification of the respective recommendations, and a summary of controversies and knowledge gaps, was similarly peer reviewed and is available on line www.angioma.org/CCMGuidelines.

How objective are forensic experts when they are retained by one of the opposing sides in an adversarial legal proceeding? Despite long-standing concerns from within the legal system, little is known about whether experts can provide opinions unbiased by the side that retained them. In this experiment, we paid 108 forensic psychologists and psychiatrists to review the same offender case files, but deceived some to believe that they were consulting for the defense and some to believe that they were consulting for the prosecution. Participants scored each offender on two commonly used, well-researched risk-assessment instruments. Those who believed they were working for the prosecution tended to assign higher risk scores to offenders, whereas those who believed they were working for the defense tended to assign lower risk scores to the same offenders; the effect sizes (d) ranged up to 0.85. The results provide strong evidence of an allegiance effect among some forensic experts in adversarial legal proceedings.

Background Clear guidance for successive antidepressant pharmacological treatments for non-responders in major depression is not well established. Method Based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, the French Association for Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology and the fondation FondaMental developed expert consensus guidelines for the management of treatment-resistant depression. The expert guidelines combine scientific evidence and expert clinicians’ opinions to produce recommendations for treatment-resistant depression. A written survey comprising 118 questions related to highly-detailed clinical presentations was completed on a risk-benefit scale ranging from 0 to 9 by 36 psychiatrist experts in the field of major depression and its treatments. Key-recommendations are provided by the scientific committee after data analysis and interpretation of the results of the survey. Results The scope of these guidelines encompasses the assessment of pharmacological resistance and situations at risk of resistance, as well as the pharmacological and psychological strategies in major depression. Conclusion The expert consensus guidelines will contribute to facilitate treatment decisions for clinicians involved in the daily assessment and management of treatment-resistant depression across a number of common and complex clinical situations.

Background Environmental health impact assessments often have to deal with substantial uncertainties. Typically, the knowledge-base is limited with incomplete, or inconsistent evidence and missing or ambiguous data. Consulting experts can help to identify and address uncertainties. Methods Formal expert elicitation is a structured approach to systematically consult experts on uncertain issues. It is most often used to quantify ranges for poorly known parameters, but may also be useful to further develop qualitative issues such as definitions, assumptions or conceptual (causal) models. A thorough preparation and systematic design and execution of an expert elicitation process may increase the validity of its outcomes and transparency and trustworthiness of its conclusions. Various expert elicitation protocols and methods exist. However, these are often not universally applicable, and need customization to suite the needs of a specific study. In this paper, we set out to develop a widely applicable method for the use of expert elicitation in environmental health impact assessment. Results We present a practical yet flexible seven step procedure towards organising expert elicitation in the context of environmental health impact assessment, based on existing protocols. We describe how customization for specific applications is always necessary. In particular, three issues affect the choice of methods for a particular application: the types of uncertainties considered, the intended use of the elicited information, and the available resources. We outline how these three considerations guide choices regarding the design and execution of expert elicitation. We present signposts to sources where the issues are discussed in more depth to give the newcomer the insights needed to make the protocol work. The seven step procedure is illustrated using examples from earlier published elicitations in the field of environmental health research. Conclusions We conclude that, despite some known criticism on its validity, formal expert elicitation can support environmental health research in various ways. Its main purpose is to provide a temporary summary of the limited available knowledge, which can serve as a provisional basis for policy until further research has been carried out.

Background The 2013 International Classification of Headache Disorders-3 (ICHD-3) was published in a beta version to allow the clinicians to confirm the validity of the criteria or to suggest improvements based on field studies. The aim of this work was to review the Primary Headache Disorders Section of ICHD-3 beta data on children and adolescents (age 0-18 years), and to suggest changes, additions, and amendments. Methods Several experts in childhood headache across the world applied different aspects of ICHD-3 beta in their normal clinical practice. Based on their personal experience and the literature available on pediatric headache, they made observations and proposed suggestions for the primary headache disorders section of ICHD-3 beta data on children and adolescents. Results Some headache disorders in children have specific features which are different from those seen in adults and which should be acknowledged and considered. Some features in children were found to be age-dependent: clinical characteristics, risks factors and etiologies have a strong bio psycho-social basis in children and adolescents making primary headache disorders in children distinct from those in adults. Conclusions Several recommendations are presented in order to make ICHD-3 more appropriate for use with children.

Many forensic disciplines require experts to judge whether two complex patterns are sufficiently similar to conclude that both originate from the same source. Studies in this area have revealed that there are a number of factors that affect perception and judgment and that decisions are subjective and susceptible to extraneous influences (such as emotional context, expectation, and motivation). Some studies have shown that the same expert examiner, examining the same prints but within different contexts, may reach different and contradictory decisions. However, such effects are not always present; some examiners seem more susceptible to such influences than do others—especially when the pattern matching is “hard to call” and when the forensic experts are not aware that they are being observed in an experimental study. Studying forensic examiners can contribute to our understanding of expertise and decision making, as well as have implications for forensic science and other areas of expertise.

Background Recommendations for pharmacological treatments of major depression with specific comorbid psychiatric conditions are lacking. Method The French Association for Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology and the fondation FondaMental developed expert consensus guidelines for the management of depression based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriatneness Method. Recommendations for lines of treatment are provided by the scientific committee after data analysis and interpretation of the results of a survey of 36 psychiatrist experts in the field of major depression and its treatments. Results The expert guidelines combine scientific evidence and expert clinician’s opinion to produce recommendations for major depression with comorbid anxiety disorders, personality disorders or substance use disorders and in geriatric depression. Conclusion These guidelines provide direction addressing common clinical dilemmas that arise in the pharmacologic treatment of major depression with comorbid psychiatric conditions.

Nearly a year after the first cases of COVID-19 were reported, it is time to look back and assess what could have been predicted by health experts.