Given a passage with a context and an answer, construct a question on the basis of the information present in the passage. Construct the question in such a way that (i) it is unambiguous, (ii) it is answerable from the passage, (iii) its answer is unique (iv) it answer uses text phrases from the passage. Avoid creating questions that (i) can't be answered correctly without actually understanding the passage and (ii) uses the same words or phrases given in the passage.

[EX Q]: Context: To evaluate pain behavior and structural damage in mice subjected to either meniscal transection or removal.', 'Mice (10/group) were subjected to transection of the medial collateral and anterior cruciate ligaments (ACLT/MCLT) followed by either transection (meniscotomy) or removal (meniscectomy) of the medial meniscus. A control group was subjected only to transection of the ligaments. Pain was assessed using the electronic pressure-meter paw test. Cell influx, measured in joint exudates, and joint histopathology were assessed after 49 days. Four other groups subjected to meniscotomy received indomethacin, the inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) inhibitor 1400W, morphine or the vehicles.', 'Both meniscotomy and meniscectomy groups displayed persistent and significant increase in pain behavior as compared to controls, being significantly more severe in the former. Cell influx was more intense in the meniscotomy as compared to the meniscectomy group. Structural damage at the tibia, but not at the femur, was also more severe in the meniscotomy group. Indomethacin and 1400W partially but significantly reduced pain whereas morphine abrogated pain behavior in meniscotomized mice.
Answer: Meniscal transection rather than resection promotes more severe pain and structural damage in mice. Administration of opioids, cyclooxygenase and nitric oxide (NO) synthase inhibitors provide analgesia in this model. Careful description of the structures damaged is crucial when reporting experimental osteoarthritis (OA).
[EX A]: Does meniscal transection rather than excision increase pain behavior and structural damage in experimental osteoarthritis in mice?

[EX Q]: Context: Suboptimal adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) is a strong predictor of virologic failure (VF) among people with HIV. Various methods such as patient self-report, pill counts and pharmacy refills have been utilized to monitor adherence. However, there are limited data on the accuracy of combining methods to better predict VF in routine clinical settings. We examined various methods to assess adherence including pill count, medication possession ratio (MPR), and self-reported adherence in order to determine which was most highly associated with VF after > 6 months on ART.', 'We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a case-control study. At enrollment, pharmacy refill data were collected retrospectively from the medical chart, pill counts were completed to derive a pill count adherence ratio (PCAR) and a self-report questionnaire was administered to all participants. Parametric smooth splines and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analyses were carried out to assess the accuracy of the adherence methods.', '458 patients were enrolled from October 2010 to June 2012. Of these, 158 (34.50%) experienced VF (cases) and 300 (65.50%) were controls. The median (IQR) PCAR was 1.10 (0.99-1.14) for cases and 1.13 (1.08-1.18) for controls (p < 0.0001). The median MPR was 1.00 (0.97-1.07) for cases and 1.03 (0.96-1.07) for controls (p = 0.83). Combination of PCAR and self-reported questions was highly associated with VF.
Answer: In this setting, a combination of pill count adherence and self-report adherence questions had the highest diagnostic accuracy for VF. Further validation of this simple, low-cost combination is warranted in large prospective studies.
[EX A]: Is the combination of pill count and self-reported adherence a strong predictor of first-line ART failure for adults in South Africa?

[EX Q]: Context: This study was conducted to quantify the effect of multidisciplinary care (MDC) on amputation-free survival (AFS) and wound healing within a chronic critical limb ischemia (CLI) population.', 'We performed a retrospective, single-center cohort study of consecutive CLI patients presenting to the Vascular Surgery Service. Patients who received initial and follow-up wound care from the MDC were compared with patients who received standard wound care (SWC). The MDC team consisted of vascular, plastic, and podiatric surgeons who jointly managed wound care and directed any other consults or services as deemed necessary. SWC consisted of an inconsistent mix of providers without a defined manager, including nurses, wound care midlevel providers, general surgeons, internists, or the patients themselves. The referring physician determined the allocation of patients. The primary outcome variable was AFS, with a secondary evaluation of wound healing. The effects of baseline demographics, comorbid medical conditions, laboratory values, ischemic lesion severity and location, Rutherford classification, and participation in MDC were assessed. Significant univariate predictors (P < .10) of AFS were entered into a multivariate Cox regression model and assessed at an α = .05.', 'Between August 2010 and June 2012, 146 CLI patients (91 male [63%]) were evaluated by the Vascular Surgery Service and were followed up for a median of 539 days (interquartile range 314-679 days). Ischemic tissue loss was present in 85 patients (38 at Rutherford category 5, and 47 at Rutherford category 6). Within this cohort, 51 (60%) had MDC, and 34 (40%) had SWC. Fifty-eight patients (68%) underwent revascularization (open in 17, endovascular in 35, and hybrid in 6), 14 (8%) were managed with primary major amputation, and 13 (15%) declined revascularization. AFS was superior for patients in the MDC arm vs the SWC arm (593.3 ± 53.5 days vs 281.0 ± 38.2 days; log-rank, P = .02). Wound-healing times favored the MDC arm over the SWC arm (444.5 ± 33.2 days vs 625.2 ± 126.5 days), although this was not statistically significant (log-rank, P = .74). Multivariate modelling revealed that independent predictors of major amputation or death, or both, were nonrevascularized patients (hazard ratio [HR], 3.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.78-8.02; χ(2), P < .01), treatment by SWC (HR, 2.664; 95% CI, 1.23-5.77; χ(2), P = .012), and baseline nonambulatory status (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.17-2.85; χ(2), P < .01).
Answer: MDC pathways for the management of a population of CLI patients improved AFS by greater than twofold and should be the standard of care for the CLI population. Baseline nonambulatory status and unrevascularized patients also predict worse AFS. Wound healing remains prolonged regardless of preoperative or postoperative wound care. Future study is required to evaluate the costs and functional outcomes for MDC in the management of CLI.
[EX A]:
Does multidisciplinary care improve amputation-free survival in patients with chronic critical limb ischemia?