Yarkoni's analysis clearly articulates a number of concerns limiting the generalizability and explanatory power of psychological findings, many of which are compounded in infancy research. ManyBabies addresses these concerns via a radically collaborative, large-scale and open approach to research that is grounded in theory-building, committed to diversification, and focused on understanding sources of variation.

Objectives: Prior studies have found associations between visual acuity (VA) and cognitive function. However, these studies used a limited range of cognitive measures and did not control for cardiovascular disease risk factors (CVD-RFs) and baseline function. The primary objective of this study was to analyze the associations of VA and cognitive performance using a thorough neuropsychological test battery. Methods: This study used community-dwelling sample data across the sixth (2001–2006) and seventh (2006–2010) waves of the Maine-Syracuse Longitudinal Study (n=655). Wave 6 VA as measured by the Snellen Eye Test was the primary predictor of wave 6 and wave 7 Global cognitive performance, Visual-Spatial Organization and Memory, Verbal Episodic Memory, Working Memory, Scanning and Tracking, and Executive Function. Additionally, VA was used to predict longitudinal changes in wave 7 cognitive performance (wave 6 performance adjusted). We analyzed these relationships with multiple linear and logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, education, ethnicity, depressive symptoms, physical function deficits in addition to CVD-RFs, chronic kidney disease, homocysteine, continuous systolic blood pressure, and hypertension status. Results: Adjusted for demographic covariates and CVD-RFs, poorer VA was associated with concurrent and approximate 5-year declines in Global cognitive function, Visual-Spatial Organization and Memory, and Verbal Episodic Memory. Discussion: VA may be used in combination with other screening measures to determine risk for cognitive decline. (JINS, 2018, 24, 1–9)

A randomised controlled trial (RCT) of high-dose v. low-dose fish oil in recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis (RA) demonstrated that the group allocated to high-dose fish oil had increased remission and decreased failure of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy. This study examines the relationships between plasma phospholipid levels of the n-3 fatty acids in fish oil, EPA and DHA, and remission and DMARD use in recent-onset RA. EPA and DHA were measured in blood samples from both groups of the RCT. The data were analysed as a single cohort, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine relationships between plasma phospholipid (PL) EPA and DHA and various outcome measures. When analysed as a single cohort, plasma PL EPA was related to time to remission, with a one unit increase in EPA (1 % total fatty acids) associated with a 12 % increase in the probability of remission at any time during the study period (hazard ratio (HR)=1·12; 95 % CI 1·02, 1·23; P=0·02). Adjustment for smoking, anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies and ‘shared epitope’ HLA-DR allele status did not change the HR. Plasma PL EPA, adjusted for the same variables, was negatively related to time to DMARD failure (HR=0·85; 95 % CI 0·72, 0·99; P=0·047). The HR for DHA and time to remission or DMARD failure were similar in magnitude to those for EPA, but not statistically significant. Biomarkers of n-3 status, such as plasma PL EPA, have the potential to predict clinical outcomes relevant to standard drug treatment of RA patients.

Few studies have examined associations between different subcategories of cholesterol and cognitive function. We examined relationships between total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), triglyceride levels and cognitive performance in the Maine-Syracuse Longitudinal Study, a community-based study of cardiovascular risk factors. Cross-sectional analyses were undertaken on data from 540 participants, aged 60 to 98 years, free of dementia and stroke. TC, HDL, LDL, and triglyceride levels were obtained. Cognitive function was assessed using a thorough neuropsychological test battery, including domains of cognitive function indexed by multiple cognitive tests. The cognitive outcomes studied were as follows: Visual-Spatial Memory and Organization, Verbal and Working Memory, Scanning and Tracking, Abstract Reasoning, a Global Composite score, and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Significant positive associations were observed between HDL-cholesterol and the Global Composite score, Working Memory, and the MMSE after adjustment for demographic and cardiovascular risk factors. Participants with desirable levels of HDL (≥60 mg/dL) had the highest scores on all cognitive outcomes. There were no significant associations observed between TC, LDL, or triglyceride concentrations and cognition. In older individuals, HDL-cholesterol was related to a composite of Working Memory tests and for general measures of cognitive ability when adjusted for cardiovascular variables. We speculate that persons over 60 are survivors and thus less likely to show cognitive deficit in relation to TC, LDL-cholesterol, and triglycerides. Longitudinal studies are needed to examine relations between specific cognitive abilities and the different subcategories of cholesterol. (JINS, 2014, 20, 1–10)

Randomised controlled trials (RCT) examining the effects of fish oil supplementation on cardiac outcomes have yielded varying results over time. Although RCT are placed at the top of the evidence hierarchy, this methodology arose in the framework of pharmaceutical development. RCT with pharmaceuticals differ in important ways from RCT involving fish oil interventions. In particular, in pharmaceutical RCT, the test agent is present only in the intervention group and not in the control group, whereas in fish oil RCT, n-3 fats are present in the diet and in the tissues of both groups. Also, early phase studies with pharmaceuticals determine pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics to design the dose of the RCT intervention so that it is in a predicted linear dose–response range. None of this happens in fish oil RCT, and there is evidence that both baseline n-3 intake and tissue levels may be sufficiently high in the dose–response range that it is not possible to demonstrate a clinical effect with a RCT. When these issues are considered, it is possible that the changing pattern of fish consumption and fish oil use over time, especially in cardiac patients, can explain the disparity where benefit was observed in the early fish oil trials but not in the more recent trials.

Objectives: In recent years, there has been growth in the use of health technology assessment (HTA) for making decisions about the reimbursement, coverage, or guidance on the use of health technologies. Given this greater emphasis on the use of HTA, it is important to develop standards of good practice and to benchmark the various HTA organizations against these standards.

Methods: This study discusses the conceptual and methodological challenges associated with benchmarking HTA organizations and proposes a series of audit questions based on a previously published set of principles of good practice.

Results and Conclusions: It is concluded that a benchmarking exercise would be feasible and useful, although the question of who should do the benchmarking requires further discussion. Key issues for further research are the alternative methods for weighting the various principles and for generating an overall score, or summary statement of adherence to the principles. Any weighting system, if developed, would need to be explored in different jurisdictions to assess the extent to which the relative importance of the principles is perceived to vary. Finally, the development and precise wording of the audit questions requires further study, with a view to making the questions as unambiguous as possible, and the reproducibility of the assessments as high as possible.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the letter by Gibson and Little. The authors raise several points that require a response. First, they claim that we inaccurately characterized the DERP/Washington State Medicaid agency, and did not appreciate that the DERP and the Washington State Medicaid agency have different missions. On the contrary, however, we fully recognized that DERP's mission is to conduct systematic reviews and not to make recommendations, whereas Washington State uses the reviews in making recommendations for their Medicaid enrollees. We specifically noted in the study that “Washington Medicaid is one of fourteen participants in the DERP. DERP researchers conduct health technology assessments for drug classes. Participants in the DERP, such as the Washington Medicaid program, retain local authority for interpreting DERP reports and for decision making regarding which drugs to pay for.” We chose to analyze DERP/Washington State as a single entity for our exercise because we were interested in analyzing the link between the HTA conducted and the decisions that follow them.