The design of artificial nestboxes for the study of secondary hole-nesting birds: a review of methodological inconsistencies and potential biases

The widespread use of artificial nestboxes has led to significant advances in our knowledge of the ecology, behaviour and physiology of cavity nesting birds, especially small passerines Nestboxes have made it easier to perform routine monitoring and experimental manipulation of eggs or nestlings, and also repeatedly to capture, identify and manipulate the parents However, when comparing results across study sites the use of nestboxes may also Introduce a potentially significant confounding variable in the form of differences in nestbox design amongst studies, such as their physical dimensions, placement height, and the way in which they are constructed and maintained However, the use of nestboxes may also introduce an unconsidered and potentially significant confounding variable clue to differences in nestbox design amongst studies, such as their physical dimensions, placement height, and the way in which they are constructed and maintained Here we review to what extent the characteristics of artificial nestboxes (e g size, shape, construction material, colour) are documented in the 'methods' sections of publications involving hole-nesting passerine birds using natural or excavated cavities or artificial nestboxes for reproduction and roosting Despite explicit previous recommendations that authors describe in detail the characteristics of the nestboxes used, we found that the description of nestbox characteristics in most recent publications remains poor and insufficient We therefore list the types of descriptive data that should be included in the methods sections of relevant manuscripts and justify this by discussing how variation in nestbox characteristics can affect or confound conclusions from nestbox studies We also propose several recommendations to improve the reliability and usefulness of research based on long-term studies of any secondary hole-nesting species using artificial nestboxes for breeding or roosting.

Methodological issues in quantifying the magnitude of the tuberculosis problem in a prison population

SETTING: Correctional settings and remand prisons. OBJECTIVE: To critically discuss calculations for epidemiological indicators of the tuberculosis (TB) burden in prisons and to provide recommendations to improve study comparability. METHODS: A hypothetical data set illustrates issues in determining incidence and prevalence. The appropriate calculation of the incidence rate is presented and problems arising from cross-sectional surveys are clarifi ed. RESULTS: Cases recognized during the fi rst 3 months should be classifi ed as prevalent at entry and excluded from any incidence rate calculation. The numerator for the incidence rate includes persons detected as having developed TB during a specifi ed period of time subsequent to the initial 3 months. The denominator is persontime at risk from 3 months onward to the end point (TB or end of the observation period). Preferably, entry time, exit time and event time are known for each inmate to determine person-time at risk. Failing that, an approximation consists of the sum of monthly head counts, excluding prevalent cases and those persons no longer at risk from both the numerator and the denominator. CONCLUSIONS: The varying durations of inmate incarceration in prisons pose challenges for quantifying the magnitude of the TB problem in the inmate population. Recommendations are made to measure incidence and prevalence.

Trauma registry record linkage: methodological approach to benefit from complementary data using the example of the German Pelvic Injury Register and the TraumaRegister DGU(®)

In Germany, hospitals can deliver data from patients with pelvic fractures selectively or twofold to two different trauma registries, i.e. the German Pelvic Injury Register (PIR) and the TraumaRegister DGU(®) (TR). Both registers are anonymous and differ in composition and content. We describe the methodological approach of linking these registries and reidentifying twofold documented patients. The aim of the approach is to create an intersection set that benefit from complementary data of each registry, respectively. Furthermore, the concordance of data entry of some clinical variables entered in both registries was evaluated.