10 results
31 Outcomes of an ACT-Based Group Protocol on Neuropsychological Late Effects in Survivors of Childhood Cancer
- Elizabeth M Stuart, Samantha Torres, Brian Gutierrez, Diana Hereld
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue s1 / November 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 December 2023, pp. 639-640
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective:
Attention of the research community on childhood cancer has grown exponentially over the last 5 decades (Robinson & Hudson, 2014). With research attention growing rapidly, cure rates have increased just as dramatically, with survivorship well over 80% (Ward, et al., 2014). With survivorship on the rise, research has turned to the examination of late effects in survivors of childhood cancer, especially neuropsychological late effects (Krull, et al., 2018). Late effects, functional impairment, and the awareness of one’s own impairment can create several lasting issues in a survivor’s life (Oeffinger, et al., 2010). The objective of this study is to explore the feasibility and functionality of a group intervention for this population.
Participants and Methods:Participants were recruited from a pediatric cancer institute in southern California. To be considered for inclusion, participants must have completed curative treatment for childhood cancer, not be currently undergoing treatment for childhood cancer, be free of any severe and persistent mental illnesses, and have access to a stable internet connection (for Zoom sessions). This study examined the impact of an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)-based group intervention protocol on survivors of childhood cancer. Specifically, this study explored a strategy to identify early neuropsychological late effects and a strategy to improve these impacts. The group intervention was conducted via Zoom (www.zoom.us) which provided an opportunity to continue to provide this service in the wake of COVID-19. Data was collected at baseline and at the completion of the group intervention. This data focused on the functional and perceived impacts of neuropsychological sequelae in these participants, as well as the changes as related to the group intervention.
Results:Data did not show any significant changes from baseline to follow-up in this population. The lack of significance was likely due to a severely truncated sample size. Despite the lack of significant findings, data appears to trend negatively. Although these findings do not provide conclusive evidence for this ACT-based group as an intervention for neuropsychological late effects in survivors of childhood cancer, the data suggested some interesting trends which will be explored further in this presentation.
Conclusions:The results of this study help to further explore the importance of attention to neuropsychological symptoms and issues in survivors of childhood cancer, especially within the first few years following the completion of treatment. As survivorship continues to increase, it will be of utmost importance to continue to examine the impact of neuropsychological late effects and how the field of neuropsychology can best serve this population. This study was severely limited by a small sample size, a single clinician providing the protocol, and a truncated timeline. Further research will examine the impact of this study protocol in a larger sample size, which will likely increase the ability to reject the null hypothesis. In addition, future research must also be conducted to better explore strategies of early and consistent neuropsychological intervention in this population.
An evidence-based framework for identifying technologies of no or low-added value (NLVT)
- Part of
- María Eugenia Esandi, Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea, Nora Ibargoyen-Roteta, Brian Godman
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 36 / Issue 1 / 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 13 December 2019, pp. 50-57
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objective
To synthetize the state of the art of methods for identifying candidate technologies for disinvestment and propose an evidence-based framework for executing this task.
MethodsAn interpretative review was conducted. A systematic literature search was performed to identify secondary or tertiary research related to disinvestment initiatives and/or any type of research that specifically described one or more methods for identifying potential candidates technologies, services, or practices for disinvestment. An iterative and critical analysis of the methods described alongside the disinvestment initiatives was performed.
ResultsSeventeen systematic reviews on disinvestment or related terms (health technology reassessment or medical reversal) were retrieved and methods of 45 disinvestment initiatives were compared. On the basis of this evidence, we proposed a new framework for identifying these technologies based on the wide definition of evidence provided by Lomas et al. The framework comprises seven basic approaches, eleven triggers and thirteen methods for applying these triggers, which were grouped in embedded and ad hoc methods.
ConclusionsAlthough identification methods have been described in the literature and tested in different contexts, the proliferation of terms and concepts used to describe this process creates considerable confusion. The proposed framework is a rigorous and flexible tool that could guide the implementation of strategies for identifying potential candidates for disinvestment.
3086 Virtual World-based Cardiac Rehabilitation to Promote Healthy Lifestyle Among Cardiac Patients
- LaPrincess Brewer, Brian Kaihoi, Shawn Leth, Ray Squires, Randal Thomas, Robert Scales, Jorge Trejo-Gutierrez, Stephen Kopecky
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 3 / Issue s1 / March 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 March 2019, pp. 61-62
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Our aim was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a VW-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) program (Destination Rehab) as an extension of a face-to-face conventional CR program. We hypothesized that a VW-based CR program could be successfully implemented as an extension of conventional CR and would have high acceptability among cardiac patients. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We recruited 30 adult cardiac patients (10/site) hospitalized at Mayo Clinic Hospitals in Rochester, MN, Jacksonville, FL or Scottsdale, AZ with a diagnosis for CR (eg, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), heart failure, elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)). Other inclusion criteria included at least 1 modifiable, lifestyle risk factor target: sedentary lifestyle (< 3 hours physical activity (PA)/week), unhealthy diet (< 5 servings fruits and vegetables/day) or current smoking (>1 year). Patients participated in an 8-week, health education program using a VW platform from a prior proof-of-concept study and provided intervention usability, usefulness and satisfaction feedback. We assessed cardiovascular (CV) health behaviors (diet, PA) and risk factors (eg, blood pressure (BP), lipids) at baseline and immediate post-intervention. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Among 30 patients enrolled (mean age; 59 years; 50% women; 65% <college graduate; 32% annual household income <$50,000), 28 (98%) completed the study. The majority (64%) were enrolled in conventional CR with a high session completion rate (median 36 sessions, interquartile range 8-36). The most common CR indication was PCI (68%). There were statistically significant improvements in PA from baseline to post-intervention: vigorous PA, +10.7 (SD 11.7) minutes/day (p = 0.05) and flexibility exercises +0.9 (SD 0.9) days/week for men (p=0.05). There were favorable trends in risk factors: systolic BP (−6.8 mmHg, SD 29.8), total cholesterol (−31.6 mg/dL, SD 46.2) and LDL (−26 mg/dL, SD 44.8) from baseline to post-intervention, although not statistically significant. The majority reported that they would continue to use VW as a resource (76%) and agreed/strongly agreed that the program improved their heart health knowledge (86%) and assisted with adapting healthier lifestyle (100%). Overall, the VW CR program received a rating of 8 (scale 0-10). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: VW-based CR program is a feasible, highly acceptable and innovative platform to influence health behaviors and CV risk and can increase accessibility to disadvantaged populations with higher CVD burdens.
VP01 A Disinvestment Toolkit: The Prioritization Of Technologies Of No Or Low Added Value
- Julie Polisena, Leonor Varela-Lema, Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea, Brian Godman
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 34 / Issue S1 / 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 03 January 2019, p. 159
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction:
Candidate health technologies identified for disinvestment will require prioritization depending on the system's capacity for dealing with the assessments or for further considerations. Compilations of low value lists, such as the National Institutes for Health and Clinical Excellence's, “Do not do recommendations”, can serve as databases for prioritization topics. Prioritization processes can also be triggered by experience or event-based regional requests and decisions; new evidence on safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, variations in clinical practice, patient or consumer voicing, discrepancies between practice and guidelines; and or time-based mechanisms, such as approval of new health technologies and reassessment five years after introduction.
Methods:A search of the published and grey literature was conducted to identify the current methods or tools used to prioritize potential health technologies and services for disinvestment. The description of the methods and tools identified, the prioritization criteria, and the stakeholders involved in the process were reviewed and summarized.
Results:The methods and tools used for prioritization that were identified in the literature include the PriTec Prioritization tool, nominal group technique, Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis, consensus building, and online surveys. Further, common criteria for prioritization centered on the disease burden, possible risks and benefits, costs and cost-effectiveness, utilization, and time-based criteria. Prioritization can be conducted by health care professionals, decision makers, patients or patient groups and representative community members.
Conclusions:The prioritization process for disinvestment candidates should be transparent and guided largely by evidence. It is highly recommended that the list of predefined criteria be developed with input from all relevant stakeholders to meet the objectives of the specific health care setting. The commonly cited basic requirements include clinical parameters, economic measures, and social, ethical or legal considerations.
OP177 Identification Of Technologies Of No Or Low Added Value
- Maria Eugenia Esandi, Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea, Nora Ibargoyen-Roteta, Brian Godman
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 34 / Issue S1 / 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 03 January 2019, p. 65
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction:
Health technology has no or low added value when it is harmful and/or is deemed to deliver limited health gain relative to its cost, representing inefficient health resource allocation. A joint effort by the Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) interest group (IG) on disinvestment and early awareness, the IG on ethics, the EuroScan network and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) is aiming to design a toolkit that could aid organizations and individuals considering disinvestment activities. We synthesized state of the art methods for identifying candidate technologies for disinvestment, and propose a framework for executing this task.
Methods:We searched systematic reviews on disinvestment and compared the methods used for identifying potential candidates. A descriptive analysis was performed including sources of evidence used and methods for selection / filtration.
Results:Ten systematic reviews were retrieved, and the methods of 29 disinvestment initiatives were compared. A new framework for identifying potential candidates was proposed which comprises seven basic approaches based on the wide definition of evidence provided by Lomas et al.; 11 triggers for disinvestment were adapted from Elshaug's proposal, and 13 methods for applying these triggers that were grouped in embedded and ad-hoc methods.
Conclusions:Identification methods have been described in the literature, and have been tested in different contexts. Context is crucial in determining the ‘not to do’ practices as they are described in different sources.
OP105 Disinvestment Toolkit: Patients Involvement In Disinvestment Activities
- Janney Wale, Ken Bond, Sally Wortley, Janet Martin, Brian Godman, Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 34 / Issue S1 / 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 03 January 2019, pp. 39-40
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction:
Patients are the people who, with their informed consent, receive medical interventions. It is important, therefore, that patients have an understanding of interventions and their potential as a treatment for their condition. Patients are becoming more informed about their health care and the treatments that are available to them. At a population level, the potential benefits and harms of treatments need to be regularly assessed. This is part of healthcare decision making at a policy level about what treatments are publically available. As technology develops and old methods are replaced by new and evidence-based interventions and procedures, healthcare payers look to streamline their payment schedules and disinvest in old technologies and procedures. Some users of health care are reluctant to let go of outmoded methods, so disinvestment is best achieved through transparent processes. Successful engagement with key stakeholders of health care, engaging with payers, health service administrators, clinicians and patients, can facilitate implementation of disinvestment processes.
Methods:To assist in this process, Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Interest Groups and EuroScan have come together to develop the following key points to consider in the involvement and engagement of clinicians, patients, and the public in the disinvestment of services and technologies.
Results:The best time to involve clinicians and patient representatives is right at the beginning of the process. Clinicians and patients can make valuable contributions as advisory committee members. The disinvestment processes may be led by clinicians, payers, or independent organizations. This will likely influence commitment of clinicians to the process.
Conclusions:Broader consultation with clinicians, patients and the public in the development and consideration of draft reports and recommendations can increase the transparency of the disinvestment process. Consultation is an important means of obtaining buy in. Feedback needs to be seen as taken seriously, and explanations given for any changes made or not made to the report and its recommendations.
HEALTH TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT: REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE FOR PUBLIC HEALTHCARE SUSTAINABILITY
- Augusto Afonso Guerra-Júnior, Lívia Lovato Pires de Lemos, Brian Godman, Marion Bennie, Cláudia Garcia Serpa Osorio-de-Castro, Juliana Alvares, Aine Heaney, Carlos Alberto Vassallo, Björn Wettermark, Gaizka Benguria-Arrate, Iñaki Gutierrez-Ibarluzea, Vania Cristina Canuto Santos, Clarice Alegre Petramale, Fransciso de Assis Acurcio
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 33 / Issue 2 / 2017
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 23 June 2017, pp. 279-287
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objectives: Health technology financing is often based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are often the same ones used for licensing. Because they are designed to show the best possible results, typically Phase III studies are conducted under ideal and highly controlled conditions. Consequently, it is not surprising that technologies do not always perform in real life in the same way as controlled conditions. Because financing (and price paid) decisions can be made with overestimated results, health authorities need to ask whether health systems achieve the results they expect when they choose to pay for a technology. The optimal way to answer this question is to assess the performance of financed technologies in real-world settings. Health technology performance assessment (HTpA) refers to the systematic evaluation of the properties, effects, and/or impact of a health intervention or health technology in the real world to provide information for investment/disinvestment decisions and clinical guideline updates. The objective is to describe the development and principal aspects of the Guideline for HTpA commissioned by the Brazilian Ministry of Health.
Methods: Our methods used include extensive literature review, refinement with experts across countries, and public consultation.
Results: A comprehensive guideline was developed, which has been adopted by the Brazilian government.
Conclusion: We believe the guideline, with its particular focus on disinvestment, along with the creation of a specific program for HTpA, will allow the institutionalization and continuous improvement of the scientific methods to use real-world evidence to optimize available resources not only in Brazil but across countries.
Contributor affiliations
-
- By Frank Andrasik, Melissa R. Andrews, Ana Inés Ansaldo, Evangelos G. Antzoulatos, Lianhua Bai, Ellen Barrett, Linamara Battistella, Nicolas Bayle, Michael S. Beattie, Peter J. Beek, Serafin Beer, Heinrich Binder, Claire Bindschaedler, Sarah Blanton, Tasia Bobish, Michael L. Boninger, Joseph F. Bonner, Chadwick B. Boulay, Vanessa S. Boyce, Anna-Katharine Brem, Jacqueline C. Bresnahan, Floor E. Buma, Mary Bartlett Bunge, John H. Byrne, Jeffrey R. Capadona, Stefano F. Cappa, Diana D. Cardenas, Leeanne M. Carey, S. Thomas Carmichael, Glauco A. P. Caurin, Pablo Celnik, Kimberly M. Christian, Stephanie Clarke, Leonardo G. Cohen, Adriana B. Conforto, Rory A. Cooper, Rosemarie Cooper, Steven C. Cramer, Armin Curt, Mark D’Esposito, Matthew B. Dalva, Gavriel David, Brandon Delia, Wenbin Deng, Volker Dietz, Bruce H. Dobkin, Marco Domeniconi, Edith Durand, Tracey Vause Earland, Georg Ebersbach, Jonathan J. Evans, James W. Fawcett, Uri Feintuch, Toby A. Ferguson, Marie T. Filbin, Diasinou Fioravante, Itzhak Fischer, Agnes Floel, Herta Flor, Karim Fouad, Richard S. J. Frackowiak, Peter H. Gorman, Thomas W. Gould, Jean-Michel Gracies, Amparo Gutierrez, Kurt Haas, C.D. Hall, Hans-Peter Hartung, Zhigang He, Jordan Hecker, Susan J. Herdman, Seth Herman, Leigh R. Hochberg, Ahmet Höke, Fay B. Horak, Jared C. Horvath, Richard L. Huganir, Friedhelm C. Hummel, Beata Jarosiewicz, Frances E. Jensen, Michael Jöbges, Larry M. Jordan, Jon H. Kaas, Andres M. Kanner, Noomi Katz, Matthew S. Kayser, Annmarie Kelleher, Gerd Kempermann, Timothy E. Kennedy, Jürg Kesselring, Fary Khan, Rachel Kizony, Jeffery D. Kocsis, Boudewijn J. Kollen, Hubertus Köller, John W. Krakauer, Hermano I. Krebs, Gert Kwakkel, Bradley Lang, Catherine E. Lang, Helmar C. Lehmann, Angelo C. Lepore, Glenn S. Le Prell, Mindy F. Levin, Joel M. Levine, David A. Low, Marilyn MacKay-Lyons, Jeffrey D. Macklis, Margaret Mak, Francine Malouin, William C. Mann, Paul D. Marasco, Christopher J. Mathias, Laura McClure, Jan Mehrholz, Lorne M. Mendell, Robert H. Miller, Carol Milligan, Beth Mineo, Simon W. Moore, Jennifer Morgan, Charbel E-H. Moussa, Martin Munz, Randolph J. Nudo, Joseph J. Pancrazio, Theresa Pape, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, Kristin M. Pearson-Fuhrhop, P. Hunter Peckham, Tamara L. Pelleshi, Catherine Verrier Piersol, Thomas Platz, Marcus Pohl, Dejan B. Popović, Andrew M. Poulos, Maulik Purohit, Hui-Xin Qi, Debbie Rand, Mahendra S. Rao, Josef P. Rauschecker, Aimee Reiss, Carol L. Richards, Keith M. Robinson, Melvyn Roerdink, John C. Rosenbek, Serge Rossignol, Edward S. Ruthazer, Arash Sahraie, Krishnankutty Sathian, Marc H. Schieber, Brian J. Schmidt, Michael E. Selzer, Mijail D. Serruya, Himanshu Sharma, Michael Shifman, Jerry Silver, Thomas Sinkjær, George M. Smith, Young-Jin Son, Tim Spencer, John D. Steeves, Oswald Steward, Sheela Stuart, Austin J. Sumner, Chin Lik Tan, Robert W. Teasell, Gareth Thomas, Aiko K. Thompson, Richard F. Thompson, Wesley J. Thompson, Erika Timar, Ceri T. Trevethan, Christopher Trimby, Gary R. Turner, Mark H. Tuszynski, Erna A. van Niekerk, Ricardo Viana, Difei Wang, Anthony B. Ward, Nick S. Ward, Stephen G. Waxman, Patrice L. Weiss, Jörg Wissel, Steven L. Wolf, Jonathan R. Wolpaw, Sharon Wood-Dauphinee, Ross D. Zafonte, Binhai Zheng, Richard D. Zorowitz
- Edited by Michael Selzer, Stephanie Clarke, Leonardo Cohen, Gert Kwakkel, Robert Miller, Case Western Reserve University, Ohio
-
- Book:
- Textbook of Neural Repair and Rehabilitation
- Published online:
- 05 May 2014
- Print publication:
- 24 April 2014, pp ix-xvi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contributor affiliations
-
- By Frank Andrasik, Melissa R. Andrews, Ana Inés Ansaldo, Evangelos G. Antzoulatos, Lianhua Bai, Ellen Barrett, Linamara Battistella, Nicolas Bayle, Michael S. Beattie, Peter J. Beek, Serafin Beer, Heinrich Binder, Claire Bindschaedler, Sarah Blanton, Tasia Bobish, Michael L. Boninger, Joseph F. Bonner, Chadwick B. Boulay, Vanessa S. Boyce, Anna-Katharine Brem, Jacqueline C. Bresnahan, Floor E. Buma, Mary Bartlett Bunge, John H. Byrne, Jeffrey R. Capadona, Stefano F. Cappa, Diana D. Cardenas, Leeanne M. Carey, S. Thomas Carmichael, Glauco A. P. Caurin, Pablo Celnik, Kimberly M. Christian, Stephanie Clarke, Leonardo G. Cohen, Adriana B. Conforto, Rory A. Cooper, Rosemarie Cooper, Steven C. Cramer, Armin Curt, Mark D’Esposito, Matthew B. Dalva, Gavriel David, Brandon Delia, Wenbin Deng, Volker Dietz, Bruce H. Dobkin, Marco Domeniconi, Edith Durand, Tracey Vause Earland, Georg Ebersbach, Jonathan J. Evans, James W. Fawcett, Uri Feintuch, Toby A. Ferguson, Marie T. Filbin, Diasinou Fioravante, Itzhak Fischer, Agnes Floel, Herta Flor, Karim Fouad, Richard S. J. Frackowiak, Peter H. Gorman, Thomas W. Gould, Jean-Michel Gracies, Amparo Gutierrez, Kurt Haas, C.D. Hall, Hans-Peter Hartung, Zhigang He, Jordan Hecker, Susan J. Herdman, Seth Herman, Leigh R. Hochberg, Ahmet Höke, Fay B. Horak, Jared C. Horvath, Richard L. Huganir, Friedhelm C. Hummel, Beata Jarosiewicz, Frances E. Jensen, Michael Jöbges, Larry M. Jordan, Jon H. Kaas, Andres M. Kanner, Noomi Katz, Matthew S. Kayser, Annmarie Kelleher, Gerd Kempermann, Timothy E. Kennedy, Jürg Kesselring, Fary Khan, Rachel Kizony, Jeffery D. Kocsis, Boudewijn J. Kollen, Hubertus Köller, John W. Krakauer, Hermano I. Krebs, Gert Kwakkel, Bradley Lang, Catherine E. Lang, Helmar C. Lehmann, Angelo C. Lepore, Glenn S. Le Prell, Mindy F. Levin, Joel M. Levine, David A. Low, Marilyn MacKay-Lyons, Jeffrey D. Macklis, Margaret Mak, Francine Malouin, William C. Mann, Paul D. Marasco, Christopher J. Mathias, Laura McClure, Jan Mehrholz, Lorne M. Mendell, Robert H. Miller, Carol Milligan, Beth Mineo, Simon W. Moore, Jennifer Morgan, Charbel E-H. Moussa, Martin Munz, Randolph J. Nudo, Joseph J. Pancrazio, Theresa Pape, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, Kristin M. Pearson-Fuhrhop, P. Hunter Peckham, Tamara L. Pelleshi, Catherine Verrier Piersol, Thomas Platz, Marcus Pohl, Dejan B. Popović, Andrew M. Poulos, Maulik Purohit, Hui-Xin Qi, Debbie Rand, Mahendra S. Rao, Josef P. Rauschecker, Aimee Reiss, Carol L. Richards, Keith M. Robinson, Melvyn Roerdink, John C. Rosenbek, Serge Rossignol, Edward S. Ruthazer, Arash Sahraie, Krishnankutty Sathian, Marc H. Schieber, Brian J. Schmidt, Michael E. Selzer, Mijail D. Serruya, Himanshu Sharma, Michael Shifman, Jerry Silver, Thomas Sinkjær, George M. Smith, Young-Jin Son, Tim Spencer, John D. Steeves, Oswald Steward, Sheela Stuart, Austin J. Sumner, Chin Lik Tan, Robert W. Teasell, Gareth Thomas, Aiko K. Thompson, Richard F. Thompson, Wesley J. Thompson, Erika Timar, Ceri T. Trevethan, Christopher Trimby, Gary R. Turner, Mark H. Tuszynski, Erna A. van Niekerk, Ricardo Viana, Difei Wang, Anthony B. Ward, Nick S. Ward, Stephen G. Waxman, Patrice L. Weiss, Jörg Wissel, Steven L. Wolf, Jonathan R. Wolpaw, Sharon Wood-Dauphinee, Ross D. Zafonte, Binhai Zheng, Richard D. Zorowitz
- Edited by Michael E. Selzer, Stephanie Clarke, Leonardo G. Cohen, Gert Kwakkel, Robert H. Miller, Case Western Reserve University, Ohio
-
- Book:
- Textbook of Neural Repair and Rehabilitation
- Published online:
- 05 June 2014
- Print publication:
- 24 April 2014, pp ix-xvi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Imimyces and Linkosia, two new genera segregated from Sporidesmium sensu lato, and redescription of Polydesmus
- ANTONIO HERNÁNDEZ-GUTIÉRREZ, BRIAN C. SUTTON
-
- Journal:
- Mycological Research / Volume 101 / Issue 2 / February 1997
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 February 1997, pp. 201-209
- Print publication:
- February 1997
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
A new description and illustration of Polydesmus elegans, the type species of Polydesmus, is given. It was formerly considered as congeneric with Sporidesmium. Two new genera, Imimyces to accommodate I. aquaticus, I. bambusae, I. carrii, I. densus, I. heterocateniformis and I. hollowayensis, and Linkosia to accommodate the single species L. coccothrinacis, are proposed. A key to species of Imimyces is provided, and a new species and six new combinations are proposed.