Euthanasia and assisted suicide in selected European countries and US states: systematic literature review

BACKGROUND Legal in some European countries and US states, physician-assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia remain under debate in these and other countries. OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to examine numbers, characteristics, and trends over time for assisted dying in regions where these practices are legal: Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Oregon, Washington, and Montana. DESIGN This was a systematic review of journal articles and official reports. Medline and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies, from inception to end of 2012. We searched the websites of the health authorities of all eligible countries and states for reports on physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia and included publications that reported on cases of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. We extracted information on the total number of assisted deaths, its proportion in relation to all deaths, and socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of individuals assisted to die. RESULTS A total of 1043 publications were identified; 25 articles and reports were retained, including series of reported cases, physician surveys, and reviews of death certificates. The percentage of physician-assisted deaths among all deaths ranged from 0.1%-0.2% in the US states and Luxembourg to 1.8%-2.9% in the Netherlands. Percentages of cases reported to the authorities increased in most countries over time. The typical person who died with assistance was a well-educated male cancer patient, aged 60-85 years. CONCLUSIONS Despite some common characteristics between countries, we found wide variation in the extent and specific characteristics of those who died an assisted death.

Entrepreneurship in Family Firms and Beyond

To explain family firms‘ generation-spanning success, scholars have increasingly been investigating entrepreneurship-related phenomena as corresponding antecedents. Entrepreneurship research beyond the family firm context has been growing significantly over the last decades as well. In both areas, however, numerous important research gaps exist. Referring to entrepreneurship in the family firm context, there is a need to enrich literature on succession/transgenerational entrepreneurship, portfolio entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial strategies and orientations. In the general entrepreneurship context, further insights are needed into employees’ entrepreneurial behavior and individuals’ entrepreneurial intentions. The six journal articles, two conference papers, and two book chapters that are included in this Cumulative Postdoctoral Thesis address those gaps and provide valuable contributions to the respective bodies of literature. As a whole, the publications significantly advance existing knowledge in two very relevant academic fields and open up promising avenues for future research.

Peer Review Processes for Transdisciplinary Articles: A Reflection on Journal's Practices

Publishing is an essential means of validation and communication of research. This is no different in transdisciplinary research, where publishing also aims at contributing to the development of society through sharing of knowledge. In the scientific world, authors need to disseminate and validate results, reflect on issues, and participate in debates. On the other hand, institutions and individuals are assessed according to their publication record – as probably the most influential of all current evaluation criteria. Occupying the space between article production and counting impact factors, journal editors and reviewers play an important role in defining and using rules to assess and improve the work submitted to them. Publishing transdisciplinary research poses specific challenges, in particular with regard to peer-review processes, as it addresses different knowledge communities with different value systems and purposes.

The James Lind Library: explaining and illustrating the evolution of fair tests of medical treatments

The James Lind Library (www.jameslindlibrary.org) has been established to improve public and professional general knowledge about fair tests of treatments in healthcare and their history. Its foundation was laid ten years ago at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, and its administrative centre is in the College's Sibbald Library, one of the most important collections of historic medical manuscripts, papers and books in the world. The James Lind Library is a website that introduces visitors to the principles of fair tests of treatments, with a series of short, illustrated essays, which are currently available in English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. A 100-page book-- Testing Treatments--is now available free through the website, both in English and in Arabic and Spanish translations. To illustrate the evolution of ideas related to fair tests of treatments from 2000 BC to the present, the James Lind Library contains key passages and images from manuscripts, books and journal articles, many of them accompanied by commentaries, biographies, portraits and other relevant documents and images, including audio and video files. New material is being added to the website continuously, as relevant new records are identified and as methods for testing treatments evolve. A multinational, multilingual editorial team oversees the development of the website, which currently receives tens of thousands of visitors every month.

Chapter I: Definitions, epidemiology, clinical presentation and prognosis

The concept of chronic critical limb ischaemia (CLI) emerged late in the history of peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD). The historical background and changing definitions of CLI over the last decades are important to know in order to understand why epidemiologic data are so difficult to compare between articles and over time. The prevalence of CLI is probably very high and largely underestimated, and significant differences exist between population studies and clinical series. The extremely high costs associated with management of these patients make CLI a real public health issue for the future. In the era of emerging vascular surgery in the 1950s, the initial classification of PAOD by Fontaine, with stages III and IV corresponding to CLI, was based only on clinical symptoms. Later, with increasing access to non-invasive haemodynamic measurements (ankle pressure, toe pressure), the need to prove a causal relationship between PAOD and clinical findings suggestive of CLI became a real concern, and the Rutherford classification published in 1986 included objective haemodynamic criteria. The first consensus document on CLI was published in 1991 and included clinical criteria associated with ankle and toe pressure and transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO(2)) cut-off levels <50 mmHg, <30 mmHg and <10 mmHg respectively). This rigorous definition reflects an arterial insufficiency that is so severe as to cause microcirculatory changes and compromise tissue integrity, with a high rate of major amputation and mortality. The TASC I consensus document published in 2000 used less severe pressure cut-offs (≤ 50-70 mmHg, ≤ 30-50 mmHg and ≤ 30-50 mmHg respectively). The thresholds for toe pressure and especially TcPO(2) (which will be also included in TASC II consensus document) are however just below the lower limit of normality. It is therefore easy to infer that patients qualifying as CLI based on TASC criteria can suffer from far less severe disease than those qualifying as CLI in the initial 1991 consensus document. Furthermore, inclusion criteria of many recent interventional studies have even shifted further from the efforts of definition standardisation with objective criteria, by including patients as CLI based merely on Fontaine classification (stage III and IV) without haemodynamic criteria. The differences in the natural history of patients with CLI, including prognosis of the limb and the patient, are thus difficult to compare between studies in this context. Overall, CLI as defined by clinical and haemodynamic criteria remains a severe condition with poor prognosis, high medical costs and a major impact in terms of public health and patients' loss of functional capacity. The major progresses in best medical therapy of arterial disease and revascularisation procedures will certainly improve the outcome of CLI patients. In the future, an effort to apply a standardised definition with clinical and objective haemodynamic criteria will be needed to better demonstrate and compare the advances in management of these patients.

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.

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.

Drug eluting and bare metal stents in people with and without diabetes: collaborative network meta-analysis

Objective To compare the effectiveness and safety of three types of stents (sirolimus eluting, paclitaxel eluting, and bare metal) in people with and without diabetes mellitus. Design Collaborative network meta-analysis. Data sources Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), relevant websites, reference lists, conference abstracts, reviews, book chapters, and proceedings of advisory panels for the US Food and Drug Administration. Manufacturers and trialists provided additional data. Review methods Network meta-analysis with a mixed treatment comparison method to combine direct within trial comparisons between stents with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation. Overall mortality was the primary safety end point, target lesion revascularisation the effectiveness end point. Results 35 trials in 3852 people with diabetes and 10 947 people without diabetes contributed to the analyses. Inconsistency of the network was substantial for overall mortality in people with diabetes and seemed to be related to the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (P value for interaction 0.02). Restricting the analysis to trials with a duration of dual antiplatelet therapy of six months or more, inconsistency was reduced considerably and hazard ratios for overall mortality were near one for all comparisons in people with diabetes: sirolimus eluting stents compared with bare metal stents 0.88 (95% credibility interval 0.55 to 1.30), paclitaxel eluting stents compared with bare metal stents 0.91 (0.60 to 1.38), and sirolimus eluting stents compared with paclitaxel eluting stents 0.95 (0.63 to 1.43). In people without diabetes, hazard ratios were unaffected by the restriction. Both drug eluting stents were associated with a decrease in revascularisation rates compared with bare metal stents in people both with and without diabetes. Conclusion In trials that specified a duration of dual antiplatelet therapy of six months or more after stent implantation, drug eluting stents seemed safe and effective in people both with and without diabetes.

[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.

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.

High Incorrect Use of the Standard Error of the Mean (SEM) in Original Articles in Three Cardiovascular Journals Evaluated for 2012.

RATIONALE In biomedical journals authors sometimes use the standard error of the mean (SEM) for data description, which has been called inappropriate or incorrect. OBJECTIVE To assess the frequency of incorrect use of SEM in articles in three selected cardiovascular journals. METHODS AND RESULTS All original journal articles published in 2012 in Cardiovascular Research, Circulation: Heart Failure and Circulation Research were assessed by two assessors for inappropriate use of SEM when providing descriptive information of empirical data. We also assessed whether the authors state in the methods section that the SEM will be used for data description. Of 441 articles included in this survey, 64% (282 articles) contained at least one instance of incorrect use of the SEM, with two journals having a prevalence above 70% and "Circulation: Heart Failure" having the lowest value (27%). In 81% of articles with incorrect use of SEM, the authors had explicitly stated that they use the SEM for data description and in 89% SEM bars were also used instead of 95% confidence intervals. Basic science studies had a 7.4-fold higher level of inappropriate SEM use (74%) than clinical studies (10%). LIMITATIONS The selection of the three cardiovascular journals was based on a subjective initial impression of observing inappropriate SEM use. The observed results are not representative for all cardiovascular journals. CONCLUSION In three selected cardiovascular journals we found a high level of inappropriate SEM use and explicit methods statements to use it for data description, especially in basic science studies. To improve on this situation, these and other journals should provide clear instructions to authors on how to report descriptive information of empirical data.