Evidence from randomised controlled clinical trials is insufficient to guide clinicians in determining the dose, frequency, route or duration of thiamine treatment for prophylaxis against or treatment of WKS due to alcohol abuse.

A significant minority of people who use the internet develop ‘internet addiction’ – a relatively new concept in psychiatry not yet recognised by ICD–10 or DSM–IV. Preliminary research offers interesting insight into predisposing factors and psychosocial treatment options. Mental health professionals need a basic understanding of internet addiction so that they can recognise it early and intervene appropriately. In this article, we present an overview of the aetiological frameworks, assessment and treatments of internet addiction.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundThe outcome of assessments is determined by the standard-setting method used. There is a wide range of standard – setting methods and the two used most extensively in undergraduate medical education in the UK are the norm-reference and the criterion-reference methods. The aims of the study were to compare these two standard-setting methods for a multiple-choice question examination and to estimate the test-retest and inter-rater reliability of the modified Angoff method.MethodsThe norm – reference method of standard -setting (mean minus 1 SD) was applied to the 'raw' scores of 78 4th-year medical students on a multiple-choice examination (MCQ). Two panels of raters also set the standard using the modified Angoff method for the same multiple-choice question paper on two occasions (6 months apart). We compared the pass/fail rates derived from the norm reference and the Angoff methods and also assessed the test-retest and inter-rater reliability of the modified Angoff method.ResultsThe pass rate with the norm-reference method was 85% (66/78) and that by the Angoff method was 100% (78 out of 78). The percentage agreement between Angoff method and norm-reference was 78% (95% CI 69% – 87%). The modified Angoff method had an inter-rater reliability of 0.81 – 0.82 and a test-retest reliability of 0.59–0.74.ConclusionThere were significant differences in the outcomes of these two standard-setting methods, as shown by the difference in the proportion of candidates that passed and failed the assessment. The modified Angoff method was found to have good inter-rater reliability and moderate test-retest reliability.