The challenge of sustainable building renovation: assessment of current criteria and future outlook

Artículo publicado en un número especial dedicado a la sostenibilidad. Se realiza un análisis crítico de las evaluación de la sostenibilidad en la rehabilitación y se plantea la perspectiva futura en este ámbito.

Pedestrian wind comfort: feasibility study of criteria homogenisation

One of the aims of COST C14 action is the assessment and evaluation of pedestrian wind comfort. At present there is no general rule available that is applied across Europe. There are several criteria that have been developed and applied in different countries. These criteria are based on the definition of two independent parameters, a threshold effective wind speed and a probability of exceedence of this threshold speed. The difficulty of the criteria comparison arises from the two-dimensional character of the criteria definition. An effort is being made to compare these criteria, trying both to find commonalities and to clearly identify differences, in order to build up the basis for the next step: to try to define common criteria (perhaps with regional and seasonal variations). The first point is to define clearly the threshold effective wind speed (mean velocity definition parameters: averaging interval and reference height) and equivalence between different ways of defining the threshold effective wind speed (mean wind speed, gust equivalent mean, etc.) in comparable terms (as far as possible). It can be shown that if the wind speed at a given location is defined in terms of a probability distribution, e.g. Weibull function, a given criterion is satisfied by an infinite set of wind conditions, that is, of probability distributions. The criterion parameters and the Weibull function parameters are linked to each other, establishing a set called iso-criteria lines (the locus of the Weibull function parameters that fulfil a given criterion). The relative position of iso-criteria lines when displayed in a suitable two-dimensional plane facilitates the comparison of comfort criteria. The comparison of several wind comfort criteria, coming from several institutes is performed, showing the feasibility and limitations of the method.

KDIGO-based acute kidney injury criteria operate differently in hospitals and the community—findings from a large population cohort

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We acknowledge the data management support of Grampian Data Safe Haven (DaSH) and the associated financial support of NHS Research Scotland, through NHS Grampian investment in the Grampian DaSH. S.S. is supported by a Clinical Research Training Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (Ref 102729/Z/13/Z). We also acknowledge the support from The Farr Institute of Health Informatics Research. The Farr Institute is supported by a 10-funder consortium: Arthritis Research UK, the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the National Institute of Health Research, the National Institute for Social Care and Health Research (Welsh Assembly Government), the Chief Scientist Office (Scottish Government Health Directorates) and the Wellcome Trust (MRC Grant Nos: Scotland MR/K007017/1).

Will new diagnostic criteria for diabetes mellitus change phenotype of patients with diabetes? Reanalysis of European epidemiological data

Objective: To evaluate the impact of the revised diagnostic criteria for diabetes mellitus adopted by the American Diabetes Association on prevalence of diabetes and on classification of patients. For epidemiological purposes the American criteria use a fasting plasma glucose concentration ⩾7.0 mmol/l in contrast with the current World Health Organisation criteria of 2 hour glucose concentration ⩾11.1 mmol/l.

An Investigation of Ozone Related Data and Development of a Model to Evaluate Ozone Episodes for Exceptional Event Criteria

The EPA promulgated the Exceptional Events Rule codifying guidance regarding exclusion of monitoring data from compliance decisions due to uncontrollable natural or exceptional events. This capstone examines documentation systems utilized by agencies requesting data be excluded from compliance decisions due to exceptional events. A screening tool is developed to determine whether an event would meet exceptional event criteria. New data sources are available to enhance analysis but evaluation shows many are unusable in their current form. The EPA and States must collaborate to develop consistent evaluation methodologies documenting exceptional events to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the new rule. To utilize newer sophisticated data, consistent, user-friendly translation systems must be developed.

Is there any evidence for the validity of diagnostic criteria used for accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions?

Purpose: To analyze the diagnostic criteria used in the scientific literature published in the past 25 years for accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions and to explore if the epidemiological analysis of diagnostic validity has been used to propose which clinical criteria should be used for diagnostic purposes. Methods: We carried out a systematic review of papers on accommodative and non-strabic binocular disorders published from 1986 to 2012 analysing the MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and FRANCIS databases. We admitted original articles about diagnosis of these anomalies in any population. We identified 839 articles and 12 studies were included. The quality of included articles was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Results: The review shows a wide range of clinical signs and cut-off points between authors. Only 3 studies (regarding accommodative anomalies) assessed diagnostic accuracy of clinical signs. Their results suggest using the accommodative amplitude and monocular accommodative facility for diagnosing accommodative insufficiency and a high positive relative accommodation for accommodative excess. The remaining 9 articles did not analyze diagnostic accuracy, assessing a diagnosis with the criteria the authors considered. We also found differences between studies in the way of considering patients’ symptomatology. 3 studies of 12 analyzed, performed a validation of a symptom survey used for convergence insufficiency. Conclusions: Scientific literature reveals differences between authors according to diagnostic criteria for accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions. Diagnostic accuracy studies show that there is only certain evidence for accommodative conditions. For binocular anomalies there is only evidence about a validated questionnaire for convergence insufficiency with no data of diagnostic accuracy.