Positive braids of maximal signature

We characterise positive braid links with positive Seifert form via a finite number of forbidden minors. From this we deduce a one-to-one correspondence between prime positive braid links with positive Seifert form and simply laced Dynkin diagrams, as well as a simple classification of alternating positive braid knots.

[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.

The examination and identification of bite marks in foods using 3D scanning and 3D comparison methods

Bite mark analysis offers the opportunity to identify the biter based on the individual characteristics of the dentitions. Normally, the main focus is on analysing bite mark injuries on human bodies, but also, bite marks in food may play an important role in the forensic investigation of a crime. This study presents a comparison of simulated bite marks in different kinds of food with the dentitions of the presumed biter. Bite marks were produced by six adults in slices of buttered bread, apples, different kinds of Swiss chocolate and Swiss cheese. The time-lapse influence of the bite mark in food, under room temperature conditions, was also examined. For the documentation of the bite marks and the dentitions of the biters, 3D optical surface scanning technology was used. The comparison was performed using two different software packages: the ATOS modelling and analysing software and the 3D studio max animation software. The ATOS software enables an automatic computation of the deviation between the two meshes. In the present study, the bite marks and the dentitions were compared, as well as the meshes of each bite mark which were recorded in the different stages of time lapse. In the 3D studio max software, the act of biting was animated to compare the dentitions with the bite mark. The examined food recorded the individual characteristics of the dentitions very well. In all cases, the biter could be identified, and the dentitions of the other presumed biters could be excluded. The influence of the time lapse on the food depends on the kind of food and is shown on the diagrams. However, the identification of the biter could still be performed after a period of time, based on the recorded individual characteristics of the dentitions.

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.

The \bar{B} \to X_s γγdecay: NLL QCD contribution of the Electromagnetic Dipole operator O_7

We calculate the set of O(\alpha_s) corrections to the double differential decay width d\Gamma_{77}/(ds_1 \, ds_2) for the process \bar{B} \to X_s \gamma \gamma originating from diagrams involving the electromagnetic dipole operator O_7. The kinematical variables s_1 and s_2 are defined as s_i=(p_b - q_i)^2/m_b^2, where p_b, q_1, q_2 are the momenta of b-quark and two photons. While the (renormalized) virtual corrections are worked out exactly for a certain range of s_1 and s_2, we retain in the gluon bremsstrahlung process only the leading power w.r.t. the (normalized) hadronic mass s_3=(p_b-q_1-q_2)^2/m_b^2 in the underlying triple differential decay width d\Gamma_{77}/(ds_1 ds_2 ds_3). The double differential decay width, based on this approximation, is free of infrared- and collinear singularities when combining virtual- and bremsstrahlung corrections. The corresponding results are obtained analytically. When retaining all powers in s_3, the sum of virtual- and bremstrahlung corrections contains uncanceled 1/\epsilon singularities (which are due to collinear photon emission from the s-quark) and other concepts, which go beyond perturbation theory, like parton fragmentation functions of a quark or a gluon into a photon, are needed which is beyond the scope of our paper.

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 generalizability 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.