STROBE Statement: linee guida per descrivere gli studi osservazionali

Much of biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study’s generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, casecontrol, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed “Explanation and Elaboration” document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

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 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 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.

Primary care at Swiss universities - current state and perspective

Background There is increasing evidence that a strong primary care is a cornerstone of an efficient health care system. But Switzerland is facing a shortage of primary care physicians (PCPs). This pushed the Federal Council of Switzerland to introduce a multifaceted political programme to strengthen the position of primary care, including its academic role. The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive overview of the situation of academic primary care at the five Swiss universities by the end of year 2012. Results Although primary care teaching activities have a long tradition at the five Swiss universities with activities starting in the beginning of the 1980ies; the academic institutes of primary care were only established in recent years (2005 – 2009). Only one of them has an established chair. Human and financial resources vary substantially. At all universities a broad variety of courses and lectures are offered, including teaching in private primary care practices with 1331 PCPs involved. Regarding research, differences among the institutes are tremendous, mainly caused by entirely different human resources and skills. Conclusion So far, the activities of the existing institutes at the Swiss Universities are mainly focused on teaching. However, for a complete academic institutionalization as well as an increased acceptance and attractiveness, more research activities are needed. In addition to an adequate basic funding of research positions, competitive research grants have to be created to establish a specialty-specific research culture.

Ignacy Koschembahr-Łyskowski: profesor Uniwersytetu Fryburskiego (1895-1900)

Ignacy Koschembahr-Łyskowski: a professor at the University of Fribourg (1895-1900) Ignacy Koschembahr-Łyskowski (1864-1945) was a Polish legal scholar researching into Roman and Private laws; one of the drafters of Polish unified Private Law in the Interwar era. After having obtained his PhD in Berlin in 1888 and postdoctoral degree in Breslau in 1894, he moved to Fribourg (Switzerland), where he stayed 5 years (1895-1900) as a professor for Roman law. Koschembahr-Łyskowski wrote there his fundamental works on the methodology of Roman law (1898) and its usefulness for modernity, as well as about the codification of Swiss Private Law (1899), demonstrating the usefulness of the Roman law experience for modern legislation. An overview of his works shows a surprising topicality of his ideas. The survey concentrates on his teaching in Fribourg as well as his writings, and is based on many newly discovered documents from the local archives, that have never been published before.

Lernzielkatalog für die studentische Lehre im Fachbereich „Geriatrie“ an Fakultäten für Humanmedizin.

Zusammenfassung Die Betreuung geriatrischer Patientinnen und Patienten setzt, nebst einer entsprechenden Haltung, fundierte Kenntnisse in Diagnostik und Behandlung praktisch aller medizinischen Fachgebiete voraus. Daher ist es wichtig, dass die Kompetenz von Studierenden der Humanmedizin im Bereich Geriatrie entsprechend gefördert wird. Bis heute hat jedoch die studentische Ausbildung im Fach Geriatrie an vielen europäischen Universitäten einen unklaren oder untergeordneten Stellenwert. Als ersten Schritt zur Förderung der Lehre in der Geriatrie hat die Europäische Facharztvereinigung Geriatrie (UEMS-GMS) in einem Delphi-Prozess einen Lernzielkatalog entwickelt. Dieser Katalog enthält die Mindestanforderungen mit spezifischen Lernzielen (Wissen, Fertigkeiten und Haltungen), welche die Studierenden der Humanmedizin bezüglich Geriatrie bis zum Abschluss des Medizinstudiums erwerben sollen. Zur Förderung der Implementierung dieses neuen, kompetenzbasierten Lernzielkatalogs an den deutschsprachigen Universitäten wurde eine an den Sprachgebrauch des „DACH-Raums“ (Deutschland, Österreich und Schweiz) angepasste deutsche Version erstellt. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird diese Übersetzung vorgestellt. Die Fachgesellschaften für Geriatrie aus Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz empfehlen den medizinischen Fakultäten der jeweiligen Länder, diesen Katalog umzusetzen.

Detection of haemorrhagic shock: Are vital signs obsolete? A commentary by Dr M. Luginbühl

The ATLS program by the American college of surgeons is probably the most important globally active training organization dedicated to improve trauma management. Detection of acute haemorrhagic shock belongs to the key issues in clinical practice and thus also in medical teaching. (In this issue of the journal William Schulz and Ian McConachrie critically review the ATLS shock classification Table 1), which has been criticized after several attempts of validation have failed [1]. The main problem is that distinct ranges of heart rate are related to ranges of uncompensated blood loss and that the heart rate decrease observed in severe haemorrhagic shock is ignored [2]. Table 1. Estimated blood loos based on patient's initial presentation (ATLS Students Course Manual, 9th Edition, American College of Surgeons 2012). Class I Class II Class III Class IV Blood loss ml Up to 750 750–1500 1500–2000 >2000 Blood loss (% blood volume) Up to 15% 15–30% 30–40% >40% Pulse rate (BPM) <100 100–120 120–140 >140 Systolic blood pressure Normal Normal Decreased Decreased Pulse pressure Normal or ↑ Decreased Decreased Decreased Respiratory rate 14–20 20–30 30–40 >35 Urine output (ml/h) >30 20–30 5–15 negligible CNS/mental status Slightly anxious Mildly anxious Anxious, confused Confused, lethargic Initial fluid replacement Crystalloid Crystalloid Crystalloid and blood Crystalloid and blood Table options In a retrospective evaluation of the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) database blood loss was estimated according to the injuries in nearly 165,000 adult trauma patients and each patient was allocated to one of the four ATLS shock classes [3]. Although heart rate increased and systolic blood pressure decreased from class I to class IV, respiratory rate and GCS were similar. The median heart rate in class IV patients was substantially lower than the value of 140 min−1 postulated by ATLS. Moreover deterioration of the different parameters does not necessarily go parallel as suggested in the ATLS shock classification [4] and [5]. In all these studies injury severity score (ISS) and mortality increased with in increasing shock class [3] and with increasing heart rate and decreasing blood pressure [4] and [5]. This supports the general concept that the higher heart rate and the lower blood pressure, the sicker is the patient. A prospective study attempted to validate a shock classification derived from the ATLS shock classes [6]. The authors used a combination of heart rate, blood pressure, clinically estimated blood loss and response to fluid resuscitation to classify trauma patients (Table 2) [6]. In their initial assessment of 715 predominantly blunt trauma patients 78% were classified as normal (Class 0), 14% as Class I, 6% as Class II and only 1% as Class III and Class IV respectively. This corresponds to the results from the previous retrospective studies [4] and [5]. The main endpoint used in the prospective study was therefore presence or absence of significant haemorrhage, defined as chest tube drainage >500 ml, evidence of >500 ml of blood loss in peritoneum, retroperitoneum or pelvic cavity on CT scan or requirement of any blood transfusion >2000 ml of crystalloid. Because of the low prevalence of class II or higher grades statistical evaluation was limited to a comparison between Class 0 and Class I–IV combined. As in the retrospective studies, Lawton did not find a statistical difference of heart rate and blood pressure among the five groups either, although there was a tendency to a higher heart rate in Class II patients. Apparently classification during primary survey did not rely on vital signs but considered the rather soft criterion of “clinical estimation of blood loss” and requirement of fluid substitution. This suggests that allocation of an individual patient to a shock classification was probably more an intuitive decision than an objective calculation the shock classification. Nevertheless it was a significant predictor of ISS [6]. Table 2. Shock grade categories in prospective validation study (Lawton, 2014) [6]. Normal No haemorrhage Class I Mild Class II Moderate Class III Severe Class IV Moribund Vitals Normal Normal HR > 100 with SBP >90 mmHg SBP < 90 mmHg SBP < 90 mmHg or imminent arrest Response to fluid bolus (1000 ml) NA Yes, no further fluid required Yes, no further fluid required Requires repeated fluid boluses Declining SBP despite fluid boluses Estimated blood loss (ml) None Up to 750 750–1500 1500–2000 >2000 Table options What does this mean for clinical practice and medical teaching? All these studies illustrate the difficulty to validate a useful and accepted physiologic general concept of the response of the organism to fluid loss: Decrease of cardiac output, increase of heart rate, decrease of pulse pressure occurring first and hypotension and bradycardia occurring only later. Increasing heart rate, increasing diastolic blood pressure or decreasing systolic blood pressure should make any clinician consider hypovolaemia first, because it is treatable and deterioration of the patient is preventable. This is true for the patient on the ward, the sedated patient in the intensive care unit or the anesthetized patients in the OR. We will therefore continue to teach this typical pattern but will continue to mention the exceptions and pitfalls on a second stage. The shock classification of ATLS is primarily used to illustrate the typical pattern of acute haemorrhagic shock (tachycardia and hypotension) as opposed to the Cushing reflex (bradycardia and hypertension) in severe head injury and intracranial hypertension or to the neurogenic shock in acute tetraplegia or high paraplegia (relative bradycardia and hypotension). Schulz and McConachrie nicely summarize the various confounders and exceptions from the general pattern and explain why in clinical reality patients often do not present with the “typical” pictures of our textbooks [1]. ATLS refers to the pitfalls in the signs of acute haemorrhage as well: Advanced age, athletes, pregnancy, medications and pace makers and explicitly state that individual subjects may not follow the general pattern. Obviously the ATLS shock classification which is the basis for a number of questions in the written test of the ATLS students course and which has been used for decades probably needs modification and cannot be literally applied in clinical practice. The European Trauma Course, another important Trauma training program uses the same parameters to estimate blood loss together with clinical exam and laboratory findings (e.g. base deficit and lactate) but does not use a shock classification related to absolute values. In conclusion the typical physiologic response to haemorrhage as illustrated by the ATLS shock classes remains an important issue in clinical practice and in teaching. The estimation of the severity haemorrhage in the initial assessment trauma patients is (and was never) solely based on vital signs only but includes the pattern of injuries, the requirement of fluid substitution and potential confounders. Vital signs are not obsolete especially in the course of treatment but must be interpreted in view of the clinical context. Conflict of interest None declared. Member of Swiss national ATLS core faculty.