STrengthening the reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology-Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME): an extension of the STROBE statement

Advances in laboratory techniques have led to a rapidly increasing use of biomarkers in epidemiological studies. Biomarkers of internal dose, early biological change, susceptibility, and clinical outcomes are used as proxies for investigating the interactions between external and/or endogenous agents and the body components or processes. The need for improved reporting of scientific research led to influential statements of recommendations such as STrengthening Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. The STROBE initiative established in 2004 aimed to provide guidance on how to report observational research. Its guidelines provide a user-friendly checklist of 22 items to be reported in epidemiological studies, with items specific to the three main study designs: cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies. The present STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology-Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME) initiative builds on the STROBE Statement implementing 9 existing items of STROBE and providing 17 additional items to the 22 items of STROBE checklist. The additions relate to the use of biomarkers in epidemiological studies, concerning collection, handling and storage of biological samples; laboratory methods, validity and reliability of biomarkers; specificities of study design; and ethical considerations. The STROBE-ME recommendations are intended to complement the STROBE recommendations.

STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology--Molecular Epidemiology STROBE-ME: an extension of the STROBE statement

Advances in laboratory techniques have led to a rapidly increasing use of biomarkers in epidemiological studies. Biomarkers of internal dose, early biological change susceptibility and clinical outcomes are used as proxies for investigating the interactions between external and/or endogenous agents and body components or processes. The need for improved reporting of scientific research led to influential statements of recommendations such as the STrengthening Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. The STROBE initiative established in 2004 aimed to provide guidance on how to report observational research. Its guidelines provide a user-friendly checklist of 22 items to be reported in epidemiological studies, with items specific to the three main study designs: cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies. The present STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology -Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME) initiative builds on the STROBE statement implementing 9 existing items of STROBE and providing 17 additional items to the 22 items of STROBE checklist. The additions relate to the use of biomarkers in epidemiological studies, concerning collection, handling and storage of biological samples; laboratory methods, validity and reliability of biomarkers; specificities of study design; and ethical considerations. The STROBE-ME recommendations are intended to complement the STROBE recommendations.

STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology - Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME): an extension of the STROBE statement

Advances in laboratory techniques have led to a rapidly increasing use of biomarkers in epidemiological studies. Biomarkers of internal dose, early biological change, susceptibility and clinical outcomes are used as proxies for investigating the interactions between external and/or endogenous agents and the body components or processes. The need for improved reporting of scientific research led to influential statements of recommendations such as the STrenghtening Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. The STROBE initiative established in 2004 aimed to provide guidance on how to report observational research. Its guidelines provide a user-friendly checklist of 22 items to be reported in epidemiological studies, with items specific to the three main study designs: cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies. The present STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology - Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME) initiative builds on the STROBE Statement implementing 9 existing items of STROBE and providing 17 additional items to the 22 items of STROBE checklist. The additions relate to the use of biomarkers in epidemiological studies, concerning collection, handling and storage of biological samples; laboratory methods, validity and reliability of biomarkers; specificities of study design; and ethical considerations. The STROBE-ME recommendations are intended to complement the STROBE recommendations.

STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology--Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME): an extension of the STROBE statement

Advances in laboratory techniques have led to a rapidly increasing use of biomarkers in epidemiological studies. Biomarkers of internal dose, early biological change, susceptibility and clinical outcomes are used as proxies for investigating interactions between external and / or endogenous agents and body components or processes. The need for improved reporting of scientific research led to influential statements of recommendations such as the STrengthening Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. The STROBE initiative established in 2004 aimed to provide guidance on how to report observational research. Its guidelines provide a user-friendly checklist of 22 items to be reported in epidemiological studies, with items specific to the three main study designs: cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies. The present STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology - Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME) initiative builds on the STROBE statement implementing nine existing items of STROBE and providing 17 additional items to the 22 items of STROBE checklist. The additions relate to the use of biomarkers in epidemiological studies, concerning collection, handling and storage of biological samples; laboratory methods, validity and reliability of biomarkers; specificities of study design; and ethical considerations. The STROBE-ME recommendations are intended to complement the STROBE recommendations.

STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology - Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME): an extension of the STROBE statement

Advances in laboratory techniques have led to a rapidly increasing use of biomarkers in epidemiological studies. Biomarkers of internal dose, early biological change, susceptibility and clinical outcomes are used as proxies for investigating interactions between external and/or endogenous agents and body components or processes. The need for improved reporting of scientific research led to influential statements of recommendations such as the STrengthening Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. The STROBE initiative established in 2004 aimed to provide guidance on how to report observational research. Its guidelines provide a user-friendly checklist of 22 items to be reported in epidemiological studies, with items specific to the three main study designs: cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies. The present STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology -Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME) initiative builds on the STROBE statement implementing nine existing items of STROBE and providing 17 additional items to the 22 items of STROBE checklist. The additions relate to the use of biomarkers in epidemiological studies, concerning collection, handling and storage of biological samples; laboratory methods, validity and reliability of biomarkers; specificities of study design; and ethical considerations. The STROBE-ME recommendations are intended to complement the STROBE recommendations.

STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology: Molecular Epidemiology STROBE-ME. An extension of the STROBE statement

Advances in laboratory techniques have led to a rapidly increasing use of biomarkers in epidemiological studies. Biomarkers of internal dose, early biological change, susceptibility, and clinical outcomes are used as proxies for investigating the interactions between external and/or endogenous agents and the body components or processes. The need for improved reporting of scientific research led to influential statements of recommendations such as STrengthening Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. The STROBE initiative established in 2004 aimed to provide guidance on how to report observational research. Its guidelines provide a user-friendly checklist of 22 items to be reported in epidemiological studies, with items specific to the three main study designs: cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies. The present STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology - Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME) initiative builds on the STROBE Statement implementing 9 existing items of STROBE and providing 17 additional items to the 22 items of STROBE checklist. The additions relate to the use of biomarkers in epidemiological studies, concerning collection, handling and storage of biological samples; laboratory methods, validity and reliability of biomarkers; specificities of study design; and ethical considerations. The STROBE-ME recommendations are intended to complement the STROBE recommendations.

Bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND: Whether bivalirudin is superior to unfractionated heparin in patients with stable or unstable angina who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after pretreatment with clopidogrel is unknown. METHODS: We enrolled 4570 patients with stable or unstable angina (with normal levels of troponin T and creatine kinase MB) who were undergoing PCI after pretreatment with a 600-mg dose of clopidogrel at least 2 hours before the procedure; 2289 patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to receive bivalirudin, and 2281 to receive unfractionated heparin. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, urgent target-vessel revascularization due to myocardial ischemia within 30 days after randomization, or major bleeding during the index hospitalization (with a net clinical benefit defined as a reduction in the incidence of the end point). The secondary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent target-vessel revascularization. RESULTS: The incidence of the primary end point was 8.3% (190 patients) in the bivalirudin group as compared with 8.7% (199 patients) in the unfractionated-heparin group (relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.15; P=0.57). The secondary end point occurred in 134 patients (5.9%) in the bivalirudin group and 115 patients (5.0%) in the unfractionated-heparin group (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.49; P=0.23). The incidence of major bleeding was 3.1% (70 patients) in the bivalirudin group and 4.6% (104 patients) in the unfractionated-heparin group (relative risk, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.90; P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable and unstable angina who underwent PCI after pretreatment with clopidogrel, bivalirudin did not provide a net clinical benefit (i.e., it did not reduce the incidence of the composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, urgent target-vessel revascularization, or major bleeding) as compared with unfractionated heparin, but it did significantly reduce the incidence of major bleeding. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00262054.)

Clinical Proton MR Spectroscopy in Central Nervous System Disorders.

A large body of published work shows that proton (hydrogen 1 [(1)H]) magnetic resonance (MR) spectroscopy has evolved from a research tool into a clinical neuroimaging modality. Herein, the authors present a summary of brain disorders in which MR spectroscopy has an impact on patient management, together with a critical consideration of common data acquisition and processing procedures. The article documents the impact of (1)H MR spectroscopy in the clinical evaluation of disorders of the central nervous system. The clinical usefulness of (1)H MR spectroscopy has been established for brain neoplasms, neonatal and pediatric disorders (hypoxia-ischemia, inherited metabolic diseases, and traumatic brain injury), demyelinating disorders, and infectious brain lesions. The growing list of disorders for which (1)H MR spectroscopy may contribute to patient management extends to neurodegenerative diseases, epilepsy, and stroke. To facilitate expanded clinical acceptance and standardization of MR spectroscopy methodology, guidelines are provided for data acquisition and analysis, quality assessment, and interpretation. Finally, the authors offer recommendations to expedite the use of robust MR spectroscopy methodology in the clinical setting, including incorporation of technical advances on clinical units. © RSNA, 2014 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Species richness, but not phylogenetic diversity, influences community biomass production and temporal stability in a re-examination of 16 grassland biodiversity studies

* Hundreds of experiments have now manipulated species richness (SR) of various groups of organisms and examined how this aspect of biological diversity influences ecosystem functioning. Ecologists have recently expanded this field to look at whether phylogenetic diversity (PD) among species, often quantified as the sum of branch lengths on a molecular phylogeny leading to all species in a community, also predicts ecological function. Some have hypothesized that phylogenetic divergence should be a superior predictor of ecological function than SR because evolutionary relatedness represents the degree of ecological and functional differentiation among species. But studies to date have provided mixed support for this hypothesis. * Here, we reanalyse data from 16 experiments that have manipulated plant SR in grassland ecosystems and examined the impact on above-ground biomass production over multiple time points. Using a new molecular phylogeny of the plant species used in these experiments, we quantified how the PD of plants impacts average community biomass production as well as the stability of community biomass production through time. * Using four complementary analyses, we show that, after statistically controlling for variation in SR, PD (the sum of branches in a molecular phylogenetic tree connecting all species in a community) is neither related to mean community biomass nor to the temporal stability of biomass. These results run counter to past claims. However, after controlling for SR, PD was positively related to variation in community biomass over time due to an increase in the variances of individual species, but this relationship was not strong enough to influence community stability. * In contrast to the non-significant relationships between PD, biomass and stability, our analyses show that SR per se tends to increase the mean biomass production of plant communities, after controlling for PD. The relationship between SR and temporal variation in community biomass was either positive, non-significant or negative depending on which analysis was used. However, the increases in community biomass with SR, independently of PD, always led to increased stability. These results suggest that PD is no better as a predictor of ecosystem functioning than SR. * Synthesis. Our study on grasslands offers a cautionary tale when trying to relate PD to ecosystem functioning suggesting that there may be ecologically important trait and functional variation among species that is not explained by phylogenetic relatedness. Our results fail to support the hypothesis that the conservation of evolutionarily distinct species would be more effective than the conservation of SR as a way to maintain productive and stable communities under changing environmental conditions.

Biodiversity increases the resistance of ecosystem productivity to climate extremes

It remains unclear whether biodiversity buffers ecosystems against climate extremes, which are becoming increasingly frequent worldwide. Early results suggested that the ecosystem productivity of diverse grassland plant communities was more resistant, changing less during drought, and more resilient, recovering more quickly after drought, than that of depauperate communities. However, subsequent experimental tests produced mixed results. Here we use data from 46 experiments that manipulated grassland plant diversity to test whether biodiversity provides resistance during and resilience after climate events. We show that biodiversity increased ecosystem resistance for a broad range of climate events, including wet or dry, moderate or extreme, and brief or prolonged events. Across all studies and climate events, the productivity of low-diversity communities with one or two species changed by approximately 50% during climate events, whereas that of high-diversity communities with 16–32 species was more resistant, changing by only approximately 25%. By a year after each climate event, ecosystem productivity had often fully recovered, or overshot, normal levels of productivity in both high- and low-diversity communities, leading to no detectable dependence of ecosystem resilience on biodiversity. Our results suggest that biodiversity mainly stabilizes ecosystem productivity, and productivity-dependent ecosystem services, by increasing resistance to climate events. Anthropogenic environmental changes that drive biodiversity loss thus seem likely to decrease ecosystem stability, and restoration of biodiversity to increase it, mainly by changing the resistance of ecosystem productivity to climate events.