Search

A total of 300 maternal line barrows (DNA; 200 x 400, initially 6.75 ± 0.23 kg BW) were used in a 21d trial to determine die standardized ileal digestible (SID) Lys requirement of nursery pigs from 6.8 to 15.9 kg. Pigs were randomly allotted to pens at weaning based on B W and were fed a common diet for 9 d after weaning. There were 10 replicate pens/treatment and 5 pigs/pen. Pens of pigs were allotted to experimental diets based on average BW, in a completely randomized design. The 6 dietary treatments consisted of 1.05, 1.15, 1.25, 1.35, 1.45, and 1.55% SID Lys and were achieved by increasing the inclusion of crystalline amino acids, allowing soybean-meal to stay constant across dietary treatments. Experimental data was analyzed using general linear and nonlinear mixed models with heterogeneous residual variances and pen as the experimental unit. Competing models included linear (LM), quadratic polynomial (QP), broken-line linear (BLL), and broken-line quadratic (BLQ). The best-fitting model for each response was selected using Bayesian information criterion (BIC). Increasing SID Lys linearly improved (P = 0.001) G:F. There was a marginal quadratic response for ADG (P = 0.067) with increasing SID Lys. The ADFI increased in a quadratic manner (P = 0.019) from 1.05 to 1.25% SID Lys. For ADG, die best-fitting comparable models were BLL [predicted equation: 462- 271 x (1.29- Lys), if SID Lys < 1.29%] and BLQ [predicted equation: 465- 372 x (1.47- Lys)2, if SID Lys < 1.47%], estimating the requirement at 1.29% (95% CI: [1.23, 1.35]%) and 1.47% (95% CI: [1.31, > 1.55]%), respectively. For G:F, the best-fitting models were QP [predicted equation: 0.750- 0.317 x (Lys) + 0.214 x (Lys)2] and LM [predicted equation: 0.392 + 0.241 x (Lys)], estimating the requirement at greater than 1.55% for both models. In conclusion, the estimated mean SID Lys required for nursery pigs from 6.8 to 15.9 kg ranged from 1.29% for maximum ADG to at least 1.55% for maximum G:F [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the following in individuals after stroke: (1) relationship between upper limb (UL) use by direct observation at home with use perceived and measured by accelerometers; (2) complementarity of these three measurements; and (3) relationship between UL bilateral capacity and bilateral use., Materials and Methods: Thirty-one individuals with chronic hemiparesis participated in this cross-sectional study. UL use was assessed using a behavioral map (BM), the Motor Activity Log-Amount of Use (MAL-AOU), and accelerometers, while UL capacity was assessed using the Test d'Evaluation des Membres Supérieurs des Personnes Âgées (TEMPA)., Results: The BM was strongly correlated with perceived use (MAL-AOU, ρ = 0.76) and accelerometer (ρ = 0.70). Bilateral UL use (BM) was moderately (ρ = 0.65) correlated with bilateral MAL-AOU and bilateral use by accelerometers (ρ = 0.62). The BM aided our understanding of how the paretic UL was used. The correlation between bilateral capacity (TEMPA bilateral) and bilateral use (BM) was significant (ρ = 0.49), while that with bilateral MAL-AOU and accelerometer were ρ = 0.68 and ρ = 0.50, respectively., Conclusion: A BM is a valid way to quantify UL use and can complement information assessed regarding perceived use and by accelerometers.Implications for rehabilitationBehavioral maps may be valuable to complement information assessed by perceived UL use and accelerometers.Quantifying bilateral capacity will reflect in a better understanding of actual paretic UL use after stroke.Accelerometers can underestimate the amount of paretic UL use in asymmetrical bilateral tasks.

Background: Orofacial pain of myofascial origin is often associated with temporomandibular joint dysfunction, affects chewing muscles and may lead to functional limitations. Dry needling is an intervention commonly used for inactivating myofascial pain trigger points., Objective: To systematically review the effects of dry needling on orofacial pain of myofascial origin in patients with temporomandibular joint dysfunction., Methods: This systematic review has pain intensity as primary outcome. Searches were conducted on April 13th, 2018 in eight databases, without publication date restrictions. We selected randomized controlled trials published in English, Portuguese, or Spanish, with no restrictions regarding subject ethnicity, age or sex., Results: Seven trials were considered eligible. There was discrepancy among dry needling treatment protocols. Meta-analysis showed that dry needling is better than other interventions for pain intensity as well as than sham therapy on pressure pain threshold, but there is very low-quality evidence and a small effect size. There were no statistically significant differences in other outcomes., Conclusion: Clinicians can use dry needling for the treatment of temporomandibular joint dysfunction, nevertheless, due the low quality of evidence and high risk of bias of some included studies, larger and low risk of bias trials are needed to assess the effects of dry needling on orofacial pain associated with temporomandibular joint dysfunction., (Copyright © 2018 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.)

Background: Low back pain (LBP) has more than doubled in the last 20 years, probably influenced by biopsychosocial factors. Noninvasive treatments have been applied in individuals with chronic nonspecific LBP as spinal manipulation and pain education. However, the neurophysiological effects of these treatments are not clear. The aim of this research is to verify the pain control, functional and neurophysiological effects of spinal manipulation, and pain education in individuals with chronic nonspecific LBP., Methods: This research is an assessor and subject blinded, 2-arm, randomized sham-controlled trial and will be conducted at Governador Celso Ramos Hospital, Florianópolis, Brazil. One hundred and twenty-eight individuals with chronic nonspecific LBP will be recruited for this study. Individuals will be randomly allocated into one of the two groups: (1) spinal manipulation plus pain education or (2) sham treatment plus pain education. Each group will be received two sessions per week over six weeks of treatment. The measures will be applied at baseline, six weeks, and three months after randomization. The primary outcome will be a pain intensity at six weeks postrandomization. Secondary outcomes will be pressure pain threshold, disability, fear and avoidance beliefs, kinesiophobia, risk of poor prognosis, quality of life, and inflammatory biomarkers., Discussion: Evidence has shown that psychosocial factors are more involved in chronic pain than we thought a few years ago. Then, studies investigating both functional and neurophysiological effects of these interventions to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment and what else is happening at the cellular level in nervous system are needed.