[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.

QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies

In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.

Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality.

OBJECTIVES To compare the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published in high- and low-impact factor (IF) Core Clinical Journals. In addition, we aimed to record the implementation of aspects of reporting, including Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram, reasons for study exclusion, and use of recommendations for interventions such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published in Core Clinical Journals between July 1 and December 31, 2012. We evaluated the methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. RESULTS Over the 6-month period, 327 interventional systematic reviews were identified with a mean AMSTAR score of 63.3% (standard deviation, 17.1%), when converted to a percentage scale. We identified deficiencies in relation to a number of quality criteria including delineation of excluded studies and assessment of publication bias. We found that SRs published in higher impact journals were undertaken more rigorously with higher percentage AMSTAR scores (per IF unit: β = 0.68%; 95% confidence interval: 0.32, 1.04; P < 0.001), a discrepancy likely to be particularly relevant when differences in IF are large. CONCLUSION Methodological quality of SRs appears to be better in higher impact journals. The overall quality of SRs published in many Core Clinical Journals remains suboptimal.

Hierarchical clustering of flow cytometry data for the study of conventional central chondrosarcoma

We have investigated the use of hierarchical clustering of flow cytometry data to classify samples of conventional central chondrosarcoma, a malignant cartilage forming tumor of uncertain cellular origin, according to similarities with surface marker profiles of several known cell types. Human primary chondrosarcoma cells, articular chondrocytes, mesenchymal stem cells, fibroblasts, and a panel of tumor cell lines from chondrocytic or epithelial origin were clustered based on the expression profile of eleven surface markers. For clustering, eight hierarchical clustering algorithms, three distance metrics, as well as several approaches for data preprocessing, including multivariate outlier detection, logarithmic transformation, and z-score normalization, were systematically evaluated. By selecting clustering approaches shown to give reproducible results for cluster recovery of known cell types, primary conventional central chondrosacoma cells could be grouped in two main clusters with distinctive marker expression signatures: one group clustering together with mesenchymal stem cells (CD49b-high/CD10-low/CD221-high) and a second group clustering close to fibroblasts (CD49b-low/CD10-high/CD221-low). Hierarchical clustering also revealed substantial differences between primary conventional central chondrosarcoma cells and established chondrosarcoma cell lines, with the latter not only segregating apart from primary tumor cells and normal tissue cells, but clustering together with cell lines from epithelial lineage. Our study provides a foundation for the use of hierarchical clustering applied to flow cytometry data as a powerful tool to classify samples according to marker expression patterns, which could lead to uncover new cancer subtypes.

Debris-flow activity in abandoned channels of the Manival torrent reconstructed with LiDAR and tree-ring data

Hydrogeomorphic processes are a major threat in many parts of the Alps, where they periodically damage infrastructure, disrupt transportation corridors or even cause loss of life. Nonetheless, past torrential activity and the analysis of areas affected during particular events remain often imprecise. It was therefore the purpose of this study to reconstruct spatio-temporal patterns of past debris-flow activity in abandoned channels on the forested cone of the Manival torrent (Massif de la Chartreuse, French Prealps). A Light Detecting and Ranging (LiDAR) generated Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was used to identify five abandoned channels and related depositional forms (lobes, lateral levees) in the proximal alluvial fan of the torrent. A total of 156 Scots pine trees (Pinus sylvestris L.) with clear signs of debris flow events was analyzed and growth disturbances (GD) assessed, such as callus tissue, the onset of compression wood or abrupt growth suppression. In total, 375 GD were identified in the tree-ring samples, pointing to 13 debris-flow events for the period 1931–2008. While debris flows appear to be very common at Manival, they have only rarely propagated outside the main channel over the past 80 years. Furthermore, analysis of the spatial distribution of disturbed trees contributed to the identification of four patterns of debris-flow routing and led to the determination of three preferential breakout locations. Finally, the results of this study demonstrate that the temporal distribution of debris flows did not exhibit significant variations since the beginning of the 20th century.

Quantification of network perfusion in ASL cerebral blood flow data with seed based and ICA approaches

Independent component analysis (ICA) or seed based approaches (SBA) in functional magnetic resonance imaging blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) data became widely applied tools to identify functionally connected, large scale brain networks. Differences between task conditions as well as specific alterations of the networks in patients as compared to healthy controls were reported. However, BOLD lacks the possibility of quantifying absolute network metabolic activity, which is of particular interest in the case of pathological alterations. In contrast, arterial spin labeling (ASL) techniques allow quantifying absolute cerebral blood flow (CBF) in rest and in task-related conditions. In this study, we explored the ability of identifying networks in ASL data using ICA and to quantify network activity in terms of absolute CBF values. Moreover, we compared the results to SBA and performed a test-retest analysis. Twelve healthy young subjects performed a fingertapping block-design experiment. During the task pseudo-continuous ASL was measured. After CBF quantification the individual datasets were concatenated and subjected to the ICA algorithm. ICA proved capable to identify the somato-motor and the default mode network. Moreover, absolute network CBF within the separate networks during either condition could be quantified. We could demonstrate that using ICA and SBA functional connectivity analysis is feasible and robust in ASL-CBF data. CBF functional connectivity is a novel approach that opens a new strategy to evaluate differences of network activity in terms of absolute network CBF and thus allows quantifying inter-individual differences in the resting state and task-related activations and deactivations.