Search

Abstract Background Compaction of human ocular lens fiber cells as a function of both aging and cataractogenesis has been demonstrated previously using scanning electron microscopy. The purpose of this investigation is to quantify morphological differences in the inner nuclear regions of cataractous and non-cataractous human lenses from individuals with diabetes. The hypothesis is that, even in the presence of the osmotic stress caused by diabetes, compaction rather than swelling occurs in the nucleus of diabetic lenses. Methods Transparent and nuclear cataractous lenses from diabetic patients were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Measurements of the fetal nuclear (FN) elliptical angles (anterior and posterior), embryonic nuclear (EN) anterior-posterior (A-P) axial thickness, and the number of EN fiber cell membrane folds over 20 μm were compared. Results Diabetic lenses with nuclear cataract exhibited smaller FN elliptical angles, smaller EN axial thicknesses, and larger numbers of EN compaction folds than their non-cataractous diabetic counterparts. Conclusion As in non-diabetic lenses, the inner nuclei of cataractous lenses from diabetics were significantly more compacted than those of non-cataractous diabetics. Little difference between diabetic and non-diabetic compaction levels was found, suggesting that diabetes does not affect the degree of compaction. However, consistent with previous proposals, diabetes does appear to accelerate the formation of cataracts that are similar to age-related nuclear cataracts in non-diabetics. We conclude that as scattering increases in the diabetic lens with cataract formation, fiber cell compaction is significant.

Transition planning is an important element of special education. This study is a secondary data analysis of the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012 (NLTS 2012) that examined parent, student, and adult service agency involvement in the transition process for secondary students with intellectual disability (ID). The NLTS 2012 is the third federal survey of secondary education, transition, and post-school life of students with disabilities. The researchers in this study found over 50% of the population responded favorably for transition meeting attendance for parents and students and student involvement in the transition process. They also found students' daily living index was a statistically significant factor in six of the transition process dependent variables examined; student's locale factored little into the transition process.

While research exists on parent expectations associated with post-school outcomes of youth with intellectual disability, limited research examines issues of parent--and youth--post-school expectations relative to issues of community, such as living in rural versus urban or suburban settings. Through a secondary analysis of the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) 2012, we examined parent and youth expectations regarding post-school outcomes for students with intellectual disability relative to school locale (i.e., rural, urban, and suburban) and severity of intellectual disability. Youth from rural schools reported high rates of positive post-school expectations with regard to independent living and being employed, and their rates relative to independent living exceeded parental expectations. However, across the different variables, school locale was only a factor in the binary or ordinal logistic regression analyses for two dependent variables: parental expectation for their child to support themselves financially and parental expectations of obtained level of education.

STUDY QUESTION What is the recommended management for couples presenting with unexplained infertility (UI), based on the best available evidence in the literature? SUMMARY ANSWER The evidence-based guideline on UI makes 52 recommendations on the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of UI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY UI is diagnosed in the absence of any abnormalities of the female and male reproductive systems after 'standard' investigations. However, a consensual standardization of the diagnostic work-up is still lacking. The management of UI is traditionally empirical. The efficacy, safety, costs, and risks of treatment options have not been subjected to robust evaluation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for ESHRE guidelines. Following formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches, and assessments were undertaken. Papers written in English and published up to 24 October 2022 were evaluated. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Based on the available evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline development group (GDG). Following stakeholder review of an initial draft, the final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE This guideline aims to help clinicians provide the best care for couples with UI. As UI is a diagnosis of exclusion, the guideline outlined the basic diagnostic procedures that couples should/could undergo during an infertility work-up, and explored the need for additional tests. The first-line treatment for couples with UI was deemed to be IUI in combination with ovarian stimulation. The place of additional and alternative options for treatment of UI was also evaluated. The GDG made 52 recommendations on diagnosis and treatment for couples with UI. The GDG formulated 40 evidence-based recommendations—of which 29 were formulated as strong recommendations and 11 as weak—10 good practice points and two research only recommendations. Of the evidence-based recommendations, none were supported by high-quality evidence, one by moderate-quality evidence, nine by low-quality evidence, and 31 by very low-quality evidence. To support future research in UI, a list of research recommendations was provided. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Most additional diagnostic tests and interventions in couples with UI have not been subjected to robust evaluation. For a large proportion of these tests and treatments, evidence was very limited and of very low quality. More evidence is required, and the results of future studies may result in the current recommendations being revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in the care of couples with UI, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field. The full guideline and a patient leaflet are available in www.eshre.eu/guideline/UI. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The guideline was developed by ESHRE, who funded the guideline meetings, literature searches, and dissemination of the guideline in collaboration with the Monash University led Australian NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproductive Life (CREWHIRL). The guideline group members did not receive any financial incentives; all work was provided voluntarily. D.R. reports honoraria from IBSA and Novo Nordisk. B.A. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Gedeon Richter, Organon and Intas Pharma; is part of the advisory board for Organon Turkey and president of the Turkish Society of Reproductive Medicine. S.B. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Organon, Ferring, the Ostetric and Gynaecological Society of Singapore and the Taiwanese Society for Reproductive Medicine; editor and contributing author, Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press; is part of the METAFOR and CAPE trials data monitoring committee. E.B. reports research grants from Roche diagnostics, Gedeon Richter and IBSA; speaker's fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, Gedeon Richter, IBSA; E.B. is also a part of an Advisory Board of Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Merck, Abbott and Gedeon Richter. M.M. reports consulting fees from Mojo Fertility Ltd. R.J.N. reports research grant from Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC); consulting fees from Flinders Fertility Adelaide, VinMec Hospital Hanoi Vietnam; speaker's fees from Merck Australia, Cadilla Pharma India, Ferring Australia; chair clinical advisory committee Westmead Fertility and research institute MyDuc Hospital Vietnam. T.P. is a part of the Research Council of Finland and reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Novo Nordics and Sigrid Juselius foundation; consulting fees from Roche Diagnostics and organon; speaker's fees from Gedeon Richter, Roche, Exeltis, Organon, Ferring and Korento patient organization; is a part of NFOG, AE-PCOS society and several Finnish associations. S.S.R. reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Organon, Theramex; consulting fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD and Organon; speaker's fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD/Organon, Besins, Theramex, Gedeon Richter; travel support from Gedeon Richter; S.S.R. is part of the Data Safety Monitoring Board of TTRANSPORT and deputy of the ESHRE Special Interest Group on Safety and Quality in ART; stock or stock options from IVI Lisboa, Clínica de Reprodução assistida Lda; equipment/medical writing/gifts from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. S.K.S. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Pharmasure. HRV reports consulting and travel fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The other authors have nothing to disclose. DISCLAIMER This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]