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

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.

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.

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.

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 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 3 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. Eighteen items are common to all 3 study designs and 4 are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available at http://www.annals.org and on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

MULTISCALE EXAMINATION AND MODELING OF ELECTRON TRANSPORT IN NANOSCALE MATERIALS AND DEVICES

For half a century the integrated circuits (ICs) that make up the heart of electronic devices have been steadily improving by shrinking at an exponential rate. However, as the current crop of ICs get smaller and the insulating layers involved become thinner, electrons leak through due to quantum mechanical tunneling. This is one of several issues which will bring an end to this incredible streak of exponential improvement of this type of transistor device, after which future improvements will have to come from employing fundamentally different transistor architecture rather than fine tuning and miniaturizing the metal-oxide-semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs) in use today. Several new transistor designs, some designed and built here at Michigan Tech, involve electrons tunneling their way through arrays of nanoparticles. We use a multi-scale approach to model these devices and study their behavior. For investigating the tunneling characteristics of the individual junctions, we use a first-principles approach to model conduction between sub-nanometer gold particles. To estimate the change in energy due to the movement of individual electrons, we use the finite element method to calculate electrostatic capacitances. The kinetic Monte Carlo method allows us to use our knowledge of these details to simulate the dynamics of an entire device— sometimes consisting of hundreds of individual particles—and watch as a device ‘turns on’ and starts conducting an electric current. Scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) and the closely related scanning tunneling spectroscopy (STS) are a family of powerful experimental techniques that allow for the probing and imaging of surfaces and molecules at atomic resolution. However, interpretation of the results often requires comparison with theoretical and computational models. We have developed a new method for calculating STM topographs and STS spectra. This method combines an established method for approximating the geometric variation of the electronic density of states, with a modern method for calculating spin-dependent tunneling currents, offering a unique balance between accuracy and accessibility.

Ausschluss von Patienten aus der Analyse: Auswirkungen auf die Ergebnisse randomisierter kontrollierter Studien: Eine meta-epidemiologische Studie

Zielsetzung: Untersuchung, ob der Ausschluss von Patienten aus der statistischen Analyse in randomisierten Studien mit Fehlbewertungen der Wirksamkeit von Behandlungen sowie einer größeren Heterogenität zwischen verschiedenen Studien assoziiert ist. Studiendesign: Meta-epidemiologische Studie auf der Basis einer Sammlung von Metaanalysen randomisierter Studien. Datenquellen: 14 Metaanalysen, die insgesamt 167 Studien berücksichtigten. Diese verglichen die Wirksamkeit therapeutischer Interventionen bei Arthrose des Knie- oder Hüftgelenks mit Kontrollgruppen, die entweder keine Intervention oder Placebo erhielten und verwendeten jeweils Schmerz nach Angaben der Patienten als Endpunkt. Methoden: Zur Berechnung der Effektgrößen wurden die Unterschiede in der durchschnittlichen Schmerzintensität zwischen den Gruppen am Ende durch die gepoolte Standardabweichung dividiert. Die statistische Zusammenfassung der Studien erfolgte durch eine Random-Effects-Metaanalyse. Studien mit und Studien ohne Ausschluss von Patienten aus der statistischen Analyse wurden in Bezug auf die Bewertung der Therapiewirksamkeit gegeneinander verglichen, und die Auswirkungen einer Beschränkung von Metaanalysen auf Studien ohne Patientenausschluss wurden berechnet. Ergebnisse: In 39 Studien (23 %) waren sämtliche Patienten in die Analyse eingeschlossen. In 128 Studien (77 %) wurden Patienten von der Analyse ausgeschlossen. Die Effektgrößen waren in Studien mit Patientenausschluss tendenziell vorteilhafter als in Studien ohne Patientenausschluss (Differenz –0,13; 95-%-Konfidenzintervall –0,29 bis 0,04). Allerdings variierten die Schätzungen der Verzerrung zwischen einzelnen Metaanalysen erheblich (τ2 = 0,07). Untersuchungen der Interaktion zwischen Ausschluss aus der Analyse und Bewertung der Therapiewirksamkeit waren in fünf Metaanalysen positiv. Stratifizierte Analysen zeigten, dass Unterschiede in Bezug auf Effektgrößen zwischen Studien mit versus Studien ohne Patientenausschluss stärker ausfielen in Metaanalysen mit großer Heterogenität zwischen den einzelnen Studien, in Metaanalysen mit großer geschätzter Therapiewirksamkeit und in Metaanalysen aus dem Bereich der Komplementärmedizin. Beschränkten sich die Metaanalysen auf Studien ohne Patientenausschluss, resultierte dies in geringerer geschätzter Therapiewirksamkeit, größeren p-Werten und einer beträchtlichen Minderung der Heterogenität zwischen den einzelnen Studien. Schlussfolgerungen: Der Ausschluss von Patienten aus der statistischen Analyse in randomisierten Studien führt häufig zu Fehleinschätzungen der Therapiewirkungen. Ausmaß und Richtung dieser Verzerrung sind jedoch unvorhersehbar. Berichte randomisierter Studien sollten grundsätzlich Ergebnisse von Intention-to-treat-Analysen nennen. Systematische Übersichtsarbeiten sollten den Einfluss des Patientenausschlusses von der statistischen Analyse auf die Bewertung der Therapiewirksamkeit routinemäßig prüfen.

EU Commission: Comments on the “Opinion of European Academics on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement”

The “Opinion of European Academics on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” (ACTA) of February 11, 2011, was published in 2 JIPITEC 65 (2011). Signed by more than 25 law professors and academics from across Europe who specialize in the field, this opinion addressed the following concern: Although it is uncontested that the infringement of intellectual property rights, especially in the Internet, prejudices the legitimate interests of right holders, it is still very controversial in Europe and abroad whether the enforcement standards of ACTA are balanced. The European Commission, DG Trade, has now published a document with detailed comments on the Opinion. The comments, which are also available on the website of the European Commission [http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/ html/147853.htm], are republished here with the kind permission of the European Commission.

hp-dGFEM for Second-Order Elliptic Problems in Plyhedra I: Stability and Quasioptimality on Geometric Meshes

We introduce and analyze hp-version discontinuous Galerkin (dG) finite element methods for the numerical approximation of linear second-order elliptic boundary-value problems in three-dimensional polyhedral domains. To resolve possible corner-, edge- and corner-edge singularities, we consider hexahedral meshes that are geometrically and anisotropically refined toward the corresponding neighborhoods. Similarly, the local polynomial degrees are increased linearly and possibly anisotropically away from singularities. We design interior penalty hp-dG methods and prove that they are well-defined for problems with singular solutions and stable under the proposed hp-refinements. We establish (abstract) error bounds that will allow us to prove exponential rates of convergence in the second part of this work.