STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA)--an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence, the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association (STREGA) studies initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed, but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE Statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information into the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and issues of data volume that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE Statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Who’s to blame? How narcissists and ex-partners of narcissists make sense of romantic breakup

Objective: past research has shown relationship problems associated with narcissists’ excessive self-centeredness and lacking concern for others. Using romantic relationships as opportunities to self-enhance rather than caring about intimacy, narcissists are sensitive to shortcomings in their partners and quick to withdraw investment once relationships turn out to be less than perfect. Our research aimed to reveal whether narcissists are aware of their destructive relationship behavior or tend to put the blame for a failed relationship on their ex-partners. Conversely, do ex-partners of narcissists take the blame and feel responsible for the breakup or walk away convinced their narcissistic ex-partners’ behavior was just too unbearable? Method: 120 participants (19-59 yrs) who reported a recent romantic breakup completed a battery of questionnaires online, including measures of narcissism and self-esteem, as well as newly created scales assessing attributions for breakup. In addition to self-reports, participants retrospectively rated their ex-partners on adapted versions of the same measures. Results: narcissists made attributions to lacking relationship investment mostly in themselves and to a lesser extent in their partners. However, this pattern was reversed when self-esteem was controlled, with attributions to partner shortcomings outnumbering aspects of own destructive behavior. Narcissism perceived in the ex-partner was related to reports of lacking investment in oneself as well as the ex-partner, but controlling for self-esteem reduced the number of attributions to own shortcomings. Conclusion: our analyses revealed that narcissists do show some awareness of their contribution to a failed relationship, although controlling for self-esteem increased their blame of the ex-partner. In contrast, associations between perceived partner-narcissism and aspects of own lacking relationship investment became fewer when self-esteem was controlled for.

Microstructural and mechanical characterization of contemporary lingual orthodontic brackets.

OBJECTIVES To investigate the composition and the microstructural and mechanical characterization of three different types of lingual brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS Incognito™ (3M Unitek), In-Ovation L (DENTSPLY GAC) and STb™ (Light Lingual System, ORMCO) lingual brackets were studied under the scanning electron microscope employing backscattered electron imaging and their elemental composition was analysed by energy-dispersive X-ray microanalysis. Additionally, Vickers hardness was assessed using a universal hardness-testing machine, and the indentation modulus was measured according to instrumented indentation test. Two-way analysis of variance was conducted employing bracket type and location (base and wing) as discriminating variable. Significant differences among groups were allocated by post hoc Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparison analysis at 95% level of significance. RESULTS Three different phases were identified for Incognito and In-Ovation L bracket based on mean atomic number contrast. On the contrary, STb did not show mean atomic contrast areas and thus it is recognized as a single phase. Incognito is a one-piece bracket with the same structure in wing and base regions. Incognito consists mainly of noble metals while In-Ovation L and STb show similar formulations of ferrous alloys in wing and base regions. No significant differences were found between ferrous brackets in hardness and modulus values, but there were significant differences between wing and base regions. Incognito illustrated intermediate values with significant differences from base and wing values of ferrous brackets. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS Significant differences exist in microstructure, elemental composition, and mechanical properties among the brackets tested; these might have a series of clinical implications during mechanotherapy.