Measurements of neutrino oscillation parameters from the T2K experiment using 3.6×1021 protons on target

The T2K experiment presents new measurements of neutrino oscillation parameters using 19.7 ( 16.3 ) × 10 20 protons on target (POT) in (anti-)neutrino mode at the far detector (FD). Compared to the previous analysis, an additional 4.7 × 10 20 POT neutrino data was collected at the FD. Significant improvements were made to the analysis methodology, with the near-detector analysis introducing new selections and using more than double the data. Additionally, this is the first T2K oscillation analysis to use NA61/SHINE data on a replica of the T2K target to tune the neutrino flux model, and the neutrino interaction model was improved to include new nuclear effects and calculations. Frequentist and Bayesian analyses are presented, including results on sin 2 θ 13 and the impact of priors on the δ CP measurement. Both analyses prefer the normal mass ordering and upper octant of sin 2 θ 23 with a nearly maximally CP-violating phase. Assuming the normal ordering and using the constraint on sin 2 θ 13 from reactors, sin 2 θ 23 = 0 . 561 - 0.032 + 0.021 using Feldman-Cousins corrected intervals, and Δ m 32 2 = 2 . 494 - 0.058 + 0.041 × 10 - 3 eV 2 using constant Δ χ 2 intervals. The CP-violating phase is constrained to δ CP = - 1 . 97 - 0.70 + 0.97 using Feldman-Cousins corrected intervals, and δ CP = 0 , π is excluded at more than 90% confidence level. A Jarlskog invariant of zero is excluded at more than 2 σ credible level using a flat prior in δ CP , and just below 2 σ using a flat prior in sin δ CP . When the external constraint on sin 2 θ 13 is removed, sin 2 θ 13 = 28 . 0 - 6.5 + 2.8 × 10 - 3 , in agreement with measurements from reactor experiments. These results are consistent with previous T2K analyses.

Does functionally based activity make a difference to health status and mobility? A randomised controlled trial in residential care facilities (The Promoting Independent Living Study; PILS)

OBJECTIVES

to determine whether a repetitive activities of daily living (ADL) activity programme improves health status, life satisfaction and mobility for older people living in residential care.

DESIGN

cluster randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

five low-level dependency residential care homes in Auckland, New Zealand.

PARTICIPANTS

one hundred and forty-nine older residents (mean age 84.7 years).

INTERVENTION

trained research staff worked with residents in intervention wards to set a goal and complete a functional assessment for each resident. They then designed an individualised activity programme based on ADL and worked with residential care home staff to implement the programme into daily activities of residents.

MEASUREMENTS

mobility: timed-up-and-go (TUG); life satisfaction: late life satisfaction index (LSI-Z); and health status: SF-36 were assessed at baseline, 3- and 6-months follow-up.

RESULTS

in the intervention group the SF-36 total physical component summary (PCS) score improved at 3 months in comparison with the control group. There was no difference between groups on mobility measures at any time, nor any measures at 6-months follow-up. Significant contamination is likely to have affected the 6-month follow-up measures.

CONCLUSIONS

a repetitive ADL exercise programme may improve health status in the short term in a group of frail older people living in residential care. Further research is needed to establish sustainability of change.

Progressive resistance strength training for physical disability in older people

BACKGROUND

Muscle weakness in old age, is associated with physical disability and an increased risk of falls. Progressive resistance strength (PRT) training exercises (i.e. movements performed against a specific external force that is regularly increased during training) are designed to increase strength in older people.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of PRT on measures of physical disability, functional limitation and impairment in older people, and identify adverse events.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group specialized register (to August 2002), CENTRAL/CCTR (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to February 1, 2002), EMBASE (1980 to February 1, 2002), CINAHL (1982 to February 1, 2002), Sports Discus (1948 to February 1, 2002), PEDro - The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (accessed February 1, 2002) and Digital Dissertations (accessed February 1, 2002). We also searched reference lists of articles, reviewed conference abstracts and contacted authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of PRT alone for older people (i.e. mean age of 60 or over) were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Weighted mean differences (WMD) were obtained using fixed or random effect models as appropriate. When measures with different units were pooled, standardised mean differences (SMD) were calculated. Relative risks were calculated for dichotomous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-six trials with 3783 participants were included. Most studies were small and of poor quality. PRT had a large positive effect on strength (41 trials, 1955 participants), but there was statistical heterogeneity that was not explained by differences in study quality, participant characteristics or the exercise program. Some functional limitation measures showed modest improvements (i.e. gait speed, 14 trials, 798 participants, WMD 0.07 m/s, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.09). However, there was no evidence that PRT had an effect on physical disability when activity measures or health related quality of life measures (HRQOL) were assessed (10 trials, 798 participants, SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.16 ). Adverse events were poorly recorded, but musculoskeletal injuries were detected in most of the studies that prospectively defined and monitored these events.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

PRT appears to be an effective intervention to increase strength in older people and has a positive effect on some functional limitations. However, the effect of this intervention on more substantive outcomes such as measures of disability or HRQOL remains unclear. It is difficult to determine the balance of risks and benefits of PRT because adverse events have generally been poorly collected and recorded.