Research data repositories (RDRs) are data storage entities where data can be submitted, stored, and subsequently accessed for purposes beyond the original intent. There is little information relating to non-biological RDRs, nor considerations regarding pediatric data storage and re-use. We examined parent perspectives on pediatric, non-biological RDRs. Qualitative, descriptive methods including both interviews and focus groups were used. Purposive sampling of adult participants in two provincial birth cohorts yielded 19 interviewees and 18 focus group participants (4 groups). Transcripts were analyzed by thematic content analysis. Parent research participants strongly supported the sharing of their own, and their child's, non-biological research data. Four themes emerged: that altruism has limits, that participants have ongoing privacy concerns, that some participants need the assurance of congruent values between themselves and researchers/research questions, and that opinions diverge for some governance issues. The establishment of RDRs is important and maximizes participants', researchers', and funders' investments. Participants as data donors have concerns relating to privacy, relationships, and governance that must be considered in RDR development.

BackgroundData sharing presents several challenges to the informed consent process. Unique challenges emerge when sharing pediatric or pregnancy-related data. Here, parent preferences for sharing non-biological data are examined.MethodsGroups (n = 4 groups, 18 participants) and individual interviews (n = 19 participants) were conducted with participants from two provincial, longitudinal pregnancy cohorts (AOB and APrON). Qualitative content analysis was applied to transcripts of semi-structured interviews.ResultsParticipants were supportive of a broad, one-time consent model or a tiered consent model. These preferences were grounded in the perceived obligations for reciprocity and accuracy. Parents want reciprocity among participants, repositories and researchers regarding respect and trust. Furthermore, parents’ worry about the interrelationships between the validity of the consent processes and secondary data use.ConclusionsThough parent participants agree that their research data should be made available for secondary use, they believe their consent is still required. Given their understanding that obtaining and informed consent can be challenging in the case of secondary use, parents agreed that a broad, one-time consent model was acceptable, reducing the logistical burden while maintaining respect for their contribution. This broad model also maintained participant trust in the research and secondary use of their data. The broad, one-time model also reflected parents’ perspectives surrounding child involvement in the consent process. The majority of parents felt decision made during childhood were the parents responsibility and should remain in parental purview until the child reaches the age of majority.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40504-016-0034-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Lymnaea exposed to crayfish effluent (CE) gain an enhanced ability to form long-term memory (LTM). We test the hypothesis that a single CE exposure and operant conditioning training leads to long lasting changes in the capability of snails to form LTM when tested in pond water four weeks later. We trained both juvenile and adult snails with a single 0.5 h training session in CE and show that LTM was present 24 h later. Snails trained in a similar manner in just pond water show no LTM. We then asked if such training in CE conferred enhanced memory forming capabilities on these snails four weeks later. That is, would LTM be formed in these snails four weeks later following a single 0.5 h training session in pond water? We found that both adult and juvenile snails previously trained in CE one month previously had enhanced LTM formation abilities. The injection of a DNA methylation blocker, 5-AZA, prior to training in adult snails blocked enhanced LTM formation four weeks later. Finally, this enhanced LTM forming ability was not passed on to the next generation of snails.

No abstract

Background Microsurgical free tissue transfers are a mainstay of lower extremity reconstruction. Despite being a reliable source of soft tissue, complications do arise. Venous congestion is among the most common causes of flap failure in lower extremity reconstruction, an issue that is attributed to venous stasis and impaired venous return in this region. There remains significant debate whether dual venous drainage improves outcomes. The aim of this study was thus to compare one versus two venous anastomoses in lower limb free flap reconstruction. Methods A systematic review of Medline, EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, SCOPUS, Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global, Cochrane Library, and PROSPERO from inception to May 20, 2020, was conducted. Two independent reviewers screened titles and extracted data. Our primary outcome was total free flap necrosis. Secondary outcomes were partial flap necrosis, minor complications, flap reoperation, venous thrombosis, and amputation. Methodological quality was assessed using the MINORS criteria and level of evidence. Results Three‐hundred and fourteen unique titles were identified. All studies were level VI evidence and had a mean MINORS score of 16.1/24. Seven studies (comprising 1499 patients, 910 single venous anastomoses, and 579 double venous anastomoses) met criteria for inclusion. The mean (SD) patient age was 46.5 (7.1) years. Double venous anastomoses did not reduce the rate of minor complications, flap takeback, venous thrombosis, total flap necrosis, or partial flap necrosis when compared to a single vein (all p > .05). Conclusion In microvascular lower extremity reconstruction, two venous anastomoses did not reduce the rate of minor or major complications.