We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Australian electoral legislation provides both a regulatory and punitive scheme designed to overcome electoral corruption and malpractice. Much of this legislation has been based on British models. The article commences by detailing the existing British legislation and its merits. Extended consideration is then given to the sections of Australian electoral legislation dealing with the conduct of candidates for election and their supporters. The former British legislation which has been imitated in various Australian jurisdictions is identified and the effectiveness of the present Australian electoral legislation is compared with that presently in force in the United Kingdom. As well, the principal electoral offences and controls on electoral expenditure in each of the States and the Commonwealth are considered at length. The analysis in this regard is complemented by a schedule to the article comparing the existence of, and penalties for, 48 electoral offences under various electoral statutes in Australia and the United Kingdom. Dr Finn concludes the article by arguing for reform in a number of specified areas of Australian electoral legislation.
An interatrial communication is present in most neonates. The majority are considered the “normal” patency of the oval foramen, while a minority are abnormal atrial septal defects. Differentiation between the two with transthoracic echocardiography may be challenging, and no generally accepted method of classification is presently available. We aimed to develop and determine the reliability of a new classification of interatrial communications in newborns.
Methods and Results:
An algorithm was developed based on echocardiographic criteria from 495 newborns (median age 11[8;13] days, 51.5% females). The algorithm defines three main categories: patency of the oval foramen, atrial septal defect, and no interatrial communication as well as several subtypes. We found an interatrial communication in 414 (83.6%) newborns. Of these, 386 (93.2%) were categorised as patency of the oval foramen and 28 (6.8%) as atrial septal defects.
Echocardiograms from another 50 newborns (median age 11[8;13] days, 36.0% female), reviewed by eight experts in paediatric echocardiography, were used to assess the inter- and intraobserver variation of classification of interatrial communications into patency of the oval foramen and atrial septal defect, with and without the use of the algorithm. Review with the algorithm gave a substantial interobserver agreement (kappa = 0.66), and an almost perfect intraobserver agreement (kappa = 0.82). Without the use of the algorithm, the interobserver agreement between experienced paediatric cardiologists was low (kappa = 0.20).
Conclusion:
A new algorithm for echocardiographic classification of interatrial communications in newborns produced almost perfect intraobserver and substantial interobserver agreement. The algorithm may prove useful in both research and clinical practice.