The NIH Toolbox (NIHTB) Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test was developed to assess processing speed within the NIHTB for the Assessment of Neurological Behavior and Function Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB). This study highlights validation data collected in adults ages 18–85 on this measure and reports descriptive data, test–retest reliability, construct validity, and preliminary work creating a composite index of processing speed. Results indicated good test–retest reliability. There was also evidence for both convergent and discriminant validity; the Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test demonstrated moderate significant correlations with other processing speed tests (i.e., WAIS-IV Coding, Symbol Search and Processing Speed Index), small significant correlations with measures of working memory (i.e., WAIS-IV Letter-Number Sequencing and PASAT), and non-significant correlations with a test of vocabulary comprehension (i.e., PPVT-IV). Finally, analyses comparing and combining scores on the NIHTB Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test with other measures of simple reaction time from the NIHTB-CB indicated that a Processing Speed Composite score performed better than any test examined in isolation. The NIHTB Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test exhibits several strengths: it is appropriate for use across the lifespan (ages, 3–85 years), it is short and easy to administer, and it has high construct validity. (JINS, 2014, 20, 1–12)

Introduction: Unilateral tonsillar enlargement is often seen in the out-patient setting. Frequently, these patients are listed for tonsillectomy for the purpose of ruling out malignant histology. This study aims to determine the necessity for tonsillectomy.

Method: This retrospective case-note review looks at all the tonsillectomies performed for histological examination at our institution over a five year period, and analyses the histological findings in those with unilateral tonsillar enlargement (UTE) alone, and those with UTE with other clinical features (history of chronic pain, dysphagia, the presence of tonsillar or peritonsillar mucosal abnormality, those with cervical lymphadenopathy). All patients who underwent tonsillectomy for the purpose of histological examination from 1 June 1998 to 30 May 2003 were identified and their notes reviewed. Exclusion criteria included cases where there were no pre-operative out-patient notes, those patients where the specimens had been sent from other hospitals, those patients who had malignancy already diagnosed, and those cases where tonsillectomy had been performed by other surgical specialties (e.g. maxillofacial, plastics). There were 1475 tonsillectomies, of which 181 performed over this period were sent for histological analysis. After excluding those patients that did not meet our criteria, we were left with 53 patients who had UTE. The primary outcome measure was the rate of malignancy in the two groups.

Results: Of these, 33 had UTE alone, 20 had associated clinical features. In the former group, none of the patients were found to have malignancy. In the latter, nine (45 per cent) had a malignancy. Fisher's exact test was used to test for differences between the UTE alone group versus the UTE plus other features group (p<0.001).

Discussion: The prevalence of malignancy in tonsils which exhibit asymmetry with no other clinical features is very low; in our study it was zero. However, other studies have found a small percentage representing underlying malignancy. In view of this, we feel that a ‘watch and wait’ policy is initially more appropriate, and if symptoms or signs are progressive, tonsillectomy should then be advised.

Objectives: The objectives of this paper were: a) to determine what can be learned from conclusions of systematic reviews about the evidence base of medicine; and b) to determine whether two readers draw similar conclusions from the same review, and whether these match the authors' conclusions.

Methods: Three methodologists (two per review) rated 160 Cochrane systematic reviews (issue 1, 1998) using pre-established conclusion categories. Disagreements were resolved by discussion to arrive at a consensual score for each review. Reviews' authors were asked to use the same categories to designate the intended conclusion. Interrater agreements were calculated.

Results: Interrater agreement between two readers was 0.68 and 0.72, and between readers and authors, 0.32. The largest categories assigned by methodologists were “positive effect” (22.5%), “insufficient evidence” (21.3%), and “evidence of no effect” (20.0%). The largest categories assigned by authors were “insufficient evidence” (32.4%), “possibly positive” (28.6%), and “positive effect” (26.7%).

Conclusions: The number of reviews indicating that the modern biomedical interventions show either no effect or insufficient evidence is surprisingly high. Intterrater disagreements suggest a surprising degree of subjective interpretation involved in systematic reviews. Where patterns of disagreement emerged between authors and readers, authors tended to be more optimistic in their conclusions than the readers. Policy implications are discussed.