Total mRNA from the tissues was quantified
by real-time RT-PCR. Results: MHY11 gene expression was down-regulated in premenopausal POP patients compared to premenopausal controls (fivefold, P = 0.002). In the postmenopausal groups, we observed a sixfold increase in the CALD1 gene expression in POP patients compared to asymptomatic controls (P = 0.03). The gene expression of CALD1, ACTG2, and LY411575 clinical trial TPM1 was significantly down-regulated in vaginal tissue of healthy women after menopause (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Dysregulation of the vaginal SM content in POP patients involves alteration of different cellular pathways according to age and menopausal status. Neurourol. Urodynam. 31:109-114, 2012. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.”
“Background: The massive edema of ovary, with or without fibromatosis, is a rare tumor-like entity characterized by an increase in volume of one or both ovaries for accumulation of edema fluid in the stroma that separates the follicular structures.
Case:
We report a rare case, very peculiar also for its association with a massive stromal fibromatosis and for the presence, never described, of tumoral areas with CHOP gene translocation, on chromosome 12q13-15.”
“To ascertain the self-reported reasons for participation in the clinical research of chronic low back pain and to evaluate those reasons in the context of informed Selleck NVP-LDE225 consent and the concept of therapeutic misconception. This is the belief that research participation is equivalent to clinical care.
Qualitative descriptive BGJ398 study with semistructured interviews.
Phone interviews with
subjects with chronic low back pain after they completed a double-blind controlled trial.
Fifty-two of 60 (86%) randomized controlled trial completers.
Seventy-seven percent had more than one reason for study participation, including the following: to contribute to research; to seek relief of pain (both short- and long-term); to try a different drug; monetary remuneration; and to have their pain taken seriously. An initial altruistic reason for participation was often followed later in the interview by reasons of personal benefit. In most cases, the single question, “”why did you participate?”" was insufficient to reveal these multiple reasons. “”Personal benefit”" had many individual meanings, framed in the context of an illness narrative of coping with chronic pain. Despite reasons of personal benefit, subjects were still able to make the distinction between research and clinical treatment.
Assessing the adequacy of informed consent requires a thorough understanding of how subjects viewed a study and their reasons for participation. Quantitative-based surveys may not capture the complexities of reasons for study participation.