Loss of astrocyte polarization upon transient focal brain ischemia as a possible mechanism to counteract early edema formation

Brain edema is the main cause of death from brain infarction. The polarized expression of the water channel protein aquaporin-4 (AQP4) on astroglial endfeet surrounding brain microvessels suggests a role in brain water balance. Loss of astrocyte foot process anchoring to the basement membrane (BM) accompanied by the loss of polarized localization of AQP4 to astrocytic endfeet has been shown to be associated with vasogenic/extracellular edema in neuroinflammation. Here, we asked if loss of astrocyte polarity is also observed in cytotoxic/intracellular edema following focal brain ischemia after transient middle cerebral artery occlusion (tMCAO). Upon mild focal brain ischemia, we observed diminished immunostaining for the BM components laminin α4, laminin α2, and the proteoglycan agrin, in the core of the lesion, but not in BMs in the surrounding penumbra. Staining for the astrocyte endfoot anchorage protein β-dystroglycan (DG) was dramatically reduced in both the lesion core and the penumbra, and AQP4 and Kir4.1 showed a loss of polarized localization to astrocytic endfeet. Interestingly, we observed that mice deficient for agrin expression in the brain lack polarized localization of β-DG and AQP4 at astrocytic endfeet and do not develop early cytotoxic/intracellular edema following tMCAO. Taken together, these data indicate that the binding of DG to agrin embedded in the subjacent BM promotes polarized localization of AQP4 to astrocyte endfeet. Reduced DG protein levels and redistribution of AQP4 as observed upon tMCAO might therefore counteract early edema formation and reflect a beneficial mechanism operating in the brain to minimize damage upon ischemia.

Agrin is required for survival and function of monocytic cells

Agrin, an extracellular matrix protein belonging to the heterogeneous family of heparan sulfate proteoglycans (HSPGs), is expressed by cells of the hematopoietic system but its role in leukocyte biology is not yet clear. Here we demonstrate that agrin has a crucial, nonredundant role in myeloid cell development and functions. We have identified lineage-specific alterations that affect maturation, survival and properties of agrin-deficient monocytic cells, and occur at stages later than stem cell precursors. Our data indicate that the cell-autonomous signals delivered by agrin are sensed by macrophages through the α-DC (DG) receptor and lead to the activation of signaling pathways resulting in rearrangements of the actin cytoskeleton during the phagocytic synapse formation and phosphorylation of extracellular signal-regulated kinases (Erk 1/2). Altogether, these data identify agrin as a novel player of innate immunity.

Predictability of biomass burning in response to climate changes

Climate is an important control on biomass burning, but the sensitivity of fire to changes in temperature and moisture balance has not been quantified. We analyze sedimentary charcoal records to show that the changes in fire regime over the past 21,000 yrs are predictable from changes in regional climates. Analyses of paleo- fire data show that fire increases monotonically with changes in temperature and peaks at intermediate moisture levels, and that temperature is quantitatively the most important driver of changes in biomass burning over the past 21,000 yrs. Given that a similar relationship between climate drivers and fire emerges from analyses of the interannual variability in biomass burning shown by remote-sensing observations of month-by-month burnt area between 1996 and 2008, our results signal a serious cause for concern in the face of continuing global warming.

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.

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.