Creating a public tool to assess and promote transparency in global land deals: the experience of the Land Matrix

The Beta version of the Land Matrix (Land Matrix 2012) was launched in April 2012 as a tool to promote public participation in building a constantly evolving database on large-scale land deals, and making the data visible and understandable. The aim of the Land Matrix partnership is to promote transparency and open data in decisionmaking over land and investment, as a step towards greater accountability. Since its launch, the Land Matrix has attracted a high degree of attention, and stirred some controversy. It provides valuable lessons on the challenges and benefits of promoting open data on practices that are often shrouded in secrecy. This paper critically examines the ongoing efforts by the Land Matrix partnership to build a public tool to promote greater transparency in decision-making over land and investment at a global level. It intends to provoke discussion of the extent to which such a tool can ultimately promote greater transparency and be a step towards greater accountability and improved decision-making. It will present the Land Matrix and its value addition, before detailing the challenges it encountered related to the measurement of the largescale land acquisition phenomenon. It will then specify how it intends to address these issues in order to establish a dynamic and participatory tool for open development.

Intrapartum detection of Group B streptococci colonization by rapid PCR-test on labor ward

OBJECTIVE Group B streptococci (GBS) may lead to early onset neonatal sepsis with severe morbidity and mortality of newborns. Intrapartum detection of GBS is needed. The objective was to compare a PCR-based test performed in the laboratory versus labor ward. STUDY DESIGN 300 patients were included prospectively. In phase I, swabs were analyzed by selective culture and rapid PCR in the laboratory. In phase II, swabs were analyzed accordingly, but the PCR test was conducted in labor ward. Test performances were analyzed and compared. RESULTS In phase I the rapid PCR test had a sensitivity of 85.71% and a specificity of 95.9%. The GBS colonization rate was 18.67%. Overall 8.5% of the PCR results were invalid. In phase II the PCR test showed a sensitivity of 85.71% and a specificity of 95.65%. The GBS colonization rate was 23.3%. Overall 23.5% of swabs tested with PCR were invalid. Initiation of specific, short 2-hour training for operating personnel in the labor ward reduced the invalid test rate to 13.4%. CONCLUSION The rapid PCR-based test yields adequate results to identify GBS colonization when performed in labor ward. In order to reduce the number of invalid tests a short training period is needed.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much 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 generalisability. 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, case-control, 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. 18 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 Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.