The present study of over 3000 2-year-old twin pairs used a sex-limitation model to examine genetic and environmental origins of sex differences in verbal and non-verbal cognitive ability. Girls scored significantly higher on both measures (p`0.0001), although gender only accounted for approximately 3% of the variance in verbal ability and 1% of the variance in non-verbal cognitive ability. For the verbal measure boys showed greater heritability than girls. Also the twin-pair correlation is significantly lower for opposite-sex twins than for non-identical same-sex twins. This indicates that individual differences in verbal ability include some sex-specific factors. Non-verbal cognitive ability did not differ in aetiology for boys and girls. We conclude that genetic and environmental influences differ for girls and boys for early verbal but not non-verbal development.

The NELA risk prediction model for emergency laparotomies discriminates well between low- and high-risk patients and is suitable for producing risk-adjusted provider mortality statistics.

ObjectiveTo identify research priorities for Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine.DesignProspective surveys and consensus meetings guided by an independent adviser.SettingUK.Participants45 stakeholder organisations (25 professional, 20 patient/carer) affiliated as James Lind Alliance partners.OutcomesFirst ‘ideas-gathering’ survey: Free text research ideas and suggestions. Second ‘prioritisation’ survey: Shortlist of ‘summary’ research questions (derived from the first survey) ranked by respondents in order of priority. Final ‘top ten’: Agreed by consensus at a final prioritisation workshop.ResultsFirst survey: 1420 suggestions received from 623 respondents (49% patients/public) were refined into a shortlist of 92 ‘summary’ questions. Second survey: 1718 respondents each nominated up to 10 questions as research priorities. Top ten: The 25 highest-ranked questions advanced to the final workshop, where 23 stakeholders (13 professional, 10 patient/carer) agreed the 10 most important questions:▸ What can we do to stop patients developing chronic pain after surgery?▸ How can patient care around the time of emergency surgery be improved?▸ What long-term harm may result from anaesthesia, particularly following repeated anaesthetics?▸ What outcomes should we use to measure the ‘success’ of anaesthesia and perioperative care?▸ How can we improve recovery from surgery for elderly patients?▸ For which patients does regional anaesthesia give better outcomes than general anaesthesia?▸ What are the effects of anaesthesia on the developing brain?▸ Do enhanced recovery programmes improve short and long-term outcomes?▸ How can preoperative exercise or fitness training, including physiotherapy, improve outcomes after surgery?▸ How can we improve communication between the teams looking after patients throughout their surgical journey?ConclusionsAlmost 2000 stakeholders contributed their views regarding anaesthetic and perioperative research priorities. This is the largest example of patient and public involvement in shaping anaesthetic and perioperative research to date.

No abstract