Assessment of lux-marked Pseudomonas fluorescens for reporting on organic carbon compounds

Carbon-flow from plant roots to the rhizosphere provides a major source of nutrients for the soil microbial population. However, quantification of carbon-flow is problematic due to its complex composition. This study investigated the potential of lux-marked Pseudomonas fluorescens to discriminate between forms of carbon present in the rhizosphere by measuring the light response to a range of carbon compounds. Results indicate that bioluminescence of short-term carbon-starved P. fluorescens is dependent upon the source and concentration of carbon. This system, therefore, has the potential to both quantify and qualify organic acids present in rhizodeposits.

COS-STAR: a reporting guideline for studies developing core outcome sets (protocol)

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets can increase the efficiency and value of research and, as a result, there are an increasing number of studies looking to develop core outcome sets (COS). However, the credibility of a COS depends on both the use of sound methodology in its development and clear and transparent reporting of the processes adopted. To date there is no reporting guideline for reporting COS studies. The aim of this programme of research is to develop a reporting guideline for studies developing COS and to highlight some of the important methodological considerations in the process.

METHODS/DESIGN: The study will include a reporting guideline item generation stage which will then be used in a Delphi study. The Delphi study is anticipated to include two rounds. The first round will ask stakeholders to score the items listed and to add any new items they think are relevant. In the second round of the process, participants will be shown the distribution of scores for all stakeholder groups separately and asked to re-score. A final consensus meeting will be held with an expert panel and stakeholder representatives to review the guideline item list. Following the consensus meeting, a reporting guideline will be drafted and review and testing will be undertaken until the guideline is finalised. The final outcome will be the COS-STAR (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting) guideline for studies developing COS and a supporting explanatory document.

DISCUSSION: To assess the credibility and usefulness of a COS, readers of a COS development report need complete, clear and transparent information on its methodology and proposed core set of outcomes. The COS-STAR guideline will potentially benefit all stakeholders in COS development: COS developers, COS users, e.g. trialists and systematic reviewers, journal editors, policy-makers and patient groups.

Quality of reporting of dental survival analyses

To explore the quality of reporting (writing and graphics) of articles that used time-to-event analyses to report dental treatment outcomes. A systematic search of the top 50 dental journals in 2008 produced the sample of articles for this analysis. Articles reporting treatment outcomes with (n = 95) and without (n = 91) time-to-event statistics were reviewed. Survival descriptive words used in the two groups were analysed (Pearson's chi-square). The quality of life tables, survival curves and time-to-event statistics were assessed (Kappa analysed agreement) and explored. Words describing dental outcomes 'over time' were more common in time-to-event compared with control articles (77%, 3%, P < 0.001). Non-specific use of 'rate' was common across both groups. Life tables and survival curves were used by 39% and 48% of the time-to-event articles, with at least one used by 82%. Construction quality was poor: 21% of life tables and 28% of survival curves achieved an acceptable standard. Time-to-event statistical reporting was poor: 3% achieved a high and 59% achieved an acceptable standard. The survival statistic, summary figure and standard error were reported in 76%, 95% and 20% of time-to-event articles. Individual statistical terms and graphic aids were common within and unique to time-to-event articles. Unfortunately, important details were regularly omitted from statistical descriptions and survival figures making the overall quality poor. It is likely this will mean such articles will be incorrectly indexed in databases, missed by searchers and unable to be understood completely if identified.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

Review of the Viability Audit process: analysis of post-primary school data

This paper provides an analysis of the post-primary school data provided in the viability audit report published in February 2012 and complements a paper already prepared with an analysis of primary school data. The Viability Audit has been led by the Education and Library Boards, working in close conjunction with CCMS. The Area Planning process was led by the Department of Education, working with the Education and Library Boards and CCMS.

Review of the Viability Audit process: analysis of primary school data

This paper provides an analysis of the primary school data provided in the viability audit report published in February 2012. The Viability Audit has been led by the Education and Library Boards, working in close conjunction with CCMS. The Area Planning process was led by the Department of Education, working with the Education and Library Boards and CCMS. Draft area planning reports, and revised reports following consultation, have been published for post primary schools; draft area planning reports for primary schools have been published and are not out for consultation. It should be noted that the draft area plan reports for primary schools used updated data available to the ELBs so some of the patterns will differ slightly from those reported in the analysis below.

Pre-Radiotherapy Dental Assessment of Head and Neck Oncology Patients: An Audit.

Objectives: Approximately 300 people are diagnosed with Head and Neck cancer annually in Northern Ireland. The management may include treatment by surgery or by chemotherapy and radiotherapy,
or a combination of modalities. Patients whose oral cavity, teeth, salivary glands and jaws that
will be affected by treatment, particularly radiotherapy should have a pre-treatment assessment. This should be done as early as possible to maximise the time available for dental management. However, this can be challenging owing to the complexities of cancer diagnosis, treatment planning and multidisciplinary management. At the Belfast Dental Hospital, a number of patients were referred post- radiotherapy with complications after not having received a pre-treatment assessment. The referrals for pre- treatment dental assessment were also late in patients’ multidisciplinary journey, limiting the time period
for dental input. The purpose of this audit was to examine the time period between dental assessment and commencement of radiotherapy and whether this was an adequate time frame for dental management. This audit will also examine the dental diseases present and the treatments required pre-radiotherapy. Methods: Data for this audit was collected over 4 months in 2012
by analysing the dental charts and referrals of new patients who were referred to and attended the dental head and neck oncology clinic. A standardised referral pro-forma was introduced from September 2013 to improve the referral process.
A re-audit was conducted over 4 months in 2014. Data was collected similarly as previous. The time period between dental assessment and commencement of radiotherapy was examined. The presence of dental disease and subsequent treatments required were also noted.
Results: 63 new patients were examined in the dental head and neck oncology clinic over 4 months in 2012. 48 (76.2%) were examined pre-radiotherapy. The average length of time between dental assessment and radiotherapy commencement was 11 days. A new standardised referral pro-forma was introduced in 2013. In the re-audit, 65 new patients were seen over 4 months in 2014.
60 (92.3%) patients were examined pre-radiotherapy. The average length of time between dental assessment and radiotherapy commencement was 18 days.
Conclusion: Given the high prevalence of pre-existing dental disease amongst head and neck cancer patients, prompt dental assessment and treatment is vital. Efforts aimed at improving the care pathway are on-going through the implementation of a mandatory referral pro-forma and a dedicated assessment clinic.

The role of complexity metrics in a multi-institutional dosimetry audit of VMAT

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the benefit of complexity metrics such as the modulation complexity score (MCS) and monitor units (MUs) in multi-institutional audits of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery.

METHODS: 39 VMAT treatment plans were analysed using MCS and MU. A virtual phantom planning exercise was planned and independently measured using the PTW Octavius(®) phantom and seven29(®) 2D array (PTW-Freiburg GmbH, Freiburg, Germany). MCS and MU were compared with the median gamma index pass rates (2%/2 and 3%/3 mm) and plan quality. The treatment planning systems (TPS) were grouped by VMAT modelling being specifically designed for the linear accelerator manufacturer's own treatment delivery system (Type 1) or independent of vendor for VMAT delivery (Type 2). Differences in plan complexity (MCS and MU) between TPS types were compared.

RESULTS: For Varian(®) linear accelerators (Varian(®) Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA), MCS and MU were significantly correlated with gamma pass rates. Type 2 TPS created poorer quality, more complex plans with significantly higher MUs and MCS than Type 1 TPS. Plan quality was significantly correlated with MU for Type 2 plans. A statistically significant correlation was observed between MU and MCS for all plans (R = -0.84, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION: MU and MCS have a role in assessing plan complexity in audits along with plan quality metrics. Plan complexity metrics give some indication of plan deliverability but should be analysed with plan quality.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Complexity metrics were investigated for a national rotational audit involving 34 institutions and they showed value. The metrics found that more complex plans were created for planning systems which were independent of vendor for VMAT delivery.