Towards science-based sediment quality standards-Effects of field-collected sediments in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

Sediments can act as long-term sinks for environmental pollutants. Within the past decades, dioxin-like compounds (DLCs) such as polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) have attracted significant attention in the scientific community. To investigate the time- and concentration-dependent uptake of DLCs and PAHs in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and their associated toxicological effects, we conducted exposure experiments using suspensions of three field-collected sediments from the rivers Rhine and Elbe, which were chosen to represent different contamination levels. Five serial dilutions of contaminated sediments were tested; these originated from the Prossen and Zollelbe sampling sites (both in the river Elbe, Germany) and from Ehrenbreitstein (Rhine, Germany), with lower levels of contamination. Fish were exposed to suspensions of these dilutions under semi-static conditions for 90 days. Analysis of muscle tissue by high resolution gas chromatography and mass spectrometry and of bile liquid by high-performance liquid chromatography showed that particle-bound PCDD/Fs, PCBs and PAHs were readily bioavailable from re-suspended sediments. Uptake of these contaminants and the associated toxicological effects in fish were largely proportional to their sediment concentrations. The changes in the investigated biomarkers closely reflected the different sediment contamination levels: cytochrome P450 1A mRNA expression and 7-ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase activity in fish livers responded immediately and with high sensitivity, while increased frequencies of micronuclei and other nuclear aberrations, as well as histopathological and gross pathological lesions, were strong indicators of the potential long-term effects of re-suspension events. Our study clearly demonstrates that sediment re-suspension can lead to accumulation of PCDD/Fs and PCBs in fish, resulting in potentially adverse toxicological effects. For a sound risk assessment within the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive and related legislation, we propose a strong emphasis on sediment-bound contaminants in the context of integrated river basin management plans.

Occurrence, finger printing and ecological risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the Chenab River, Pakistan

Seventeen polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were studied in surface waters (including particulate phase) from the Chenab River, Pakistan and ranged from 289-994 and 437-1290 ng l-1 in summer and winter (2007-09), respectively. Concentrations for different ring-number PAHs followed the trend: 3-rings > 2-rings > 4-rings > 5-rings > 6-rings. The possible sources of PAHs are identified by calculating the indicative ratios; appropriating petrogenic sources of PAHs in urban and sub-urban regions with pyrogenic sources in agricultural region. Factor analysis based on principal component analysis identified the origins of PAHs from industrial activities, coal and trash burning in agricultural areas and municipal waste disposal from surrounding urban and sub-urban areas via open drains into the riverine ecosystem. Water quality guidelines and toxic equivalent factors highlighted the potential risk of low molecular weight PAHs to the aquatic life of the Chenab River. The flux estimated for PAHs contaminants from the Chenab River to the Indus River was >50 tons/year.

JExample: Exploiting Dependencies Between Tests to Improve Defect Localization

To quickly localize defects, we want our attention to be focussed on relevant failing tests. We propose to improve defect localization by exploiting dependencies between tests, using a JUnit extension called JExample. In a case study, a monolithic white-box test suite for a complex algorithm is refactored into two traditional JUnit style tests and to JExample. Of the three refactorings, JExample reports five times fewer defect locations and slightly better performance (-8-12\%), while having similar maintenance characteristics. Compared to the original implementation, JExample greatly improves maintainability due the improved factorization following the accepted test quality guidelines. As such, JExample combines the benefits of test chains with test quality aspects of JUnit style testing.

Use of EORTC Target Definition Guidelines for Dose-Intensified Salvage Radiation Therapy for Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Results of the Quality Assurance Program of the Randomized Trial SAKK 09/10

PURPOSE Different international target volume delineation guidelines exist and different treatment techniques are available for salvage radiation therapy (RT) for recurrent prostate cancer, but less is known regarding their respective applicability in clinical practice. METHODS AND MATERIALS A randomized phase III trial testing 64 Gy vs 70 Gy salvage RT was accompanied by an intense quality assurance program including a site-specific and study-specific questionnaire and a dummy run (DR). Target volume delineation was performed according to the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines, and a DR-based treatment plan was established for 70 Gy. Major and minor protocol deviations were noted, interobserver agreement of delineated target contours was assessed, and dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters of different treatment techniques were compared. RESULTS Thirty European centers participated, 43% of which were using 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT), with the remaining centers using intensity modulated RT (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc technique (VMAT). The first submitted version of the DR contained major deviations in 21 of 30 (70%) centers, mostly caused by inappropriately defined or lack of prostate bed (PB). All but 5 centers completed the DR successfully with their second submitted version. The interobserver agreement of the PB was moderate and was improved by the DR review, as indicated by an increased κ value (0.59 vs 0.55), mean sensitivity (0.64 vs 0.58), volume of total agreement (3.9 vs 3.3 cm(3)), and decrease in the union volume (79.3 vs 84.2 cm(3)). Rectal and bladder wall DVH parameters of IMRT and VMAT vs 3D-CRT plans were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS The interobserver agreement of PB delineation was moderate but was improved by the DR. Major deviations could be identified for the majority of centers. The DR has improved the acquaintance of the participating centers with the trial protocol.

Influence of catchment quality and altitude on the water and sediment composition of 68 small lakes in Central Europe

68 lakes (63 Swiss, 2 French and 3 Italian) located in an altitudinal range between 334 and 2339m spanning a wide range of land-use have been investigated. The aim of the study was to discuss influences of geographic location, vegetation and land-use in the catchment area on the water and sediment chemistry of small lakes. Detailed quantitative description of land-use, vegetation, and climate in the watershed of all lakes was established. Surface and bottom water samples collected from each lake were analyzed for major ions and nutrients. Correlations were interpreted using linear regression analysis. Chemical parameters of water and sediment reflect the characteristics of the catchment areas. All lakes were alkaline since they were situated on calcareous bedrock. Concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus strongly increase with increasing agricultural land-use. Na and K, however, are positively correlated with the amount of urbanization within the catchment area. These elements as well as dissolved organic carbon (DOC), Mg, Ca, and alkalinity, increase when the catchment is urbanized or used for agriculture. Total nitrogen and organic carbon in the sediments decrease distinctly if large parts of the catchment consist of bare land. No correlations between sediment composition and maximum water depth or altitude of the lakes were found.¶Striking differences in the water compositions of lakes above and below approximately 700 m of altitude were observed. Concentrations of total nitrogen and nitrate, total phosphorus, DOC, Na, K, Mg, Ca, and alkalinity are distinctly higher in most lakes below 700 m than above, and the pH of the bottom waters of these lakes is generally lower. Estimates of total nitrogen concentrations, even in remote areas, indicate that precipitation is responsible for increased background concentrations. At lower altitudes nitrogen concentrations in lakes is explained by the nitrogen loaded rain from urban areas deposited on the catchment, and with high percentages of agricultural land-use in the watershed.

[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics

Abstract Objectives: To assess the reporting quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SR) in orthodontics and to compare the reporting quality (PRISMA score) with methodological quality (AMSTAR criteria). Materials and Methods: Systematic reviews (n  =  109) published between January 2000 and July 2011 in five leading orthodontic journals were identified and included. The quality of reporting of the included reviews was assessed by two authors in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Each article was assigned a cumulative grade based on fulfillment of the applicable criteria, and an overall percentage score was assigned. Descriptive statistics and simple and multiple linear regression analyses were undertaken. Results: The mean overall PRISMA score was 64.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%-65%). The quality of reporting was considerably better in reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (P < .001) than in non-Cochrane reviews. Both multivariable and univariable analysis indicated that journal of publication and number of authors was significantly associated with the PRISMA score. The association between AMSTAR score and modified PRISMA score was also found to be highly statistically significant. Conclusion: Compliance of orthodontic SRs published in orthodontic journals with PRISMA guidelines was deficient in several areas. The quality of reporting assessed using PRISMA guidelines was significantly better in orthodontic SRs published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Effective compression ratio-A new measurement of the quality of thorax compression during CPR

PURPOSE: Computer-based feedback systems for assessing the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are widely used these days. Recordings usually involve compression and ventilation dependent variables. Thorax compression depth, sufficient decompression and correct hand position are displayed but interpreted independently of one another. We aimed to generate a parameter, which represents all the combined relevant parameters of compression to provide a rapid assessment of the quality of chest compression-the effective compression ratio (ECR). METHODS: The following parameters were used to determine the ECR: compression depth, correct hand position, correct decompression and the proportion of time used for chest compressions compared to the total time spent on CPR. Based on the ERC guidelines, we calculated that guideline compliant CPR (30:2) has a minimum ECR of 0.79. To calculate the ECR, we expanded the previously described software solution. In order to demonstrate the usefulness of the new ECR-parameter, we first performed a PubMed search for studies that included correct compression and no-flow time, after which we calculated the new parameter, the ECR. RESULTS: The PubMed search revealed 9 trials. Calculated ECR values ranged between 0.03 (for basic life support [BLS] study, two helpers, no feedback) and 0.67 (BLS with feedback from the 6th minute). CONCLUSION: ECR enables rapid, meaningful assessment of CPR and simplifies the comparability of studies as well as the individual performance of trainees. The structure of the software solution allows it to be easily adapted to any manikin, CPR feedback devices and different resuscitation guidelines (e.g. ILCOR, ERC).

Guidance for the preparation of neurological management guidelines by EFNS scientific task forces - revised recommendations 2012

This paper is meant to provide guidance to anyone wishing to write a neurological guideline for diagnosis or treatment, and is directed at the Scientist Panels and task forces of the European Federation of Neurological Societies (EFNS). It substitutes the previous guidance paper from 2004. It contains several new aspects: the guidance is now based on a change of the grading system for evidence and for the resulting recommendations, and has adopted The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (GRADE). The process of grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations can now be improved and made more transparent. The task forces embarking on the development of a guideline must now make clearer and more transparent choices about outcomes considered most relevant when searching the literature and evaluating their findings. Thus, the outcomes chosen will be more critical, more patient-oriented and easier to translate into simple recommendations. This paper also provides updated practical recommendations for planning a guideline task force within the framework of the EFNS. Finally, this paper hopes to find the approval also by the relevant bodies of our future organization, the European Academy of Neurology.

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 websites 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

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 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, 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.

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 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, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a two-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.

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 websites 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.