Differentiating normal hyaline cartilage from post-surgical repair tissue using fast gradient echo imaging in delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI (dGEMRIC) at 3 Tesla

The purpose was to evaluate the relative glycosaminoglycan (GAG) content of repair tissue in patients after microfracturing (MFX) and matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation (MACT) of the knee joint with a dGEMRIC technique based on a newly developed short 3D-GRE sequence with two flip angle excitation pulses. Twenty patients treated with MFX or MACT (ten in each group) were enrolled. For comparability, patients from each group were matched by age (MFX: 37.1 +/- 16.3 years; MACT: 37.4 +/- 8.2 years) and postoperative interval (MFX: 33.0 +/- 17.3 months; MACT: 32.0 +/- 17.2 months). The Delta relaxation rate (DeltaR1) for repair tissue and normal hyaline cartilage and the relative DeltaR1 were calculated, and mean values were compared between both groups using an analysis of variance. The mean DeltaR1 for MFX was 1.07 +/- 0.34 versus 0.32 +/- 0.20 at the intact control site, and for MACT, 1.90 +/- 0.49 compared to 0.87 +/- 0.44, which resulted in a relative DeltaR1 of 3.39 for MFX and 2.18 for MACT. The difference between the cartilage repair groups was statistically significant. The new dGEMRIC technique based on dual flip angle excitation pulses showed higher GAG content in patients after MACT compared to MFX at the same postoperative interval and allowed reducing the data acquisition time to 4 min.

Comparison of delayed gadolinium enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC) using inversion recovery and fast T1 mapping sequences

The delayed Gadolinium Enhanced MRI of Cartilage (dGEMRIC) technique has shown promising results in pilot clinical studies of early osteoarthritis. Currently, its broader acceptance is limited by the long scan time and the need for postprocessing to calculate the T1 maps. A fast T1 mapping imaging technique based on two spoiled gradient echo images was implemented. In phantom studies, an appropriate flip angle combination optimized for center T1 of 756 to 955 ms yielded excellent agreement with T1 measured using the inversion recovery technique in the range of 200 to 900 ms, of interest in normal and diseased cartilage. In vivo validation was performed by serially imaging 26 hips using the inversion recovery and the Fast 2 angle T1 mapping techniques (center T1 756 ms). Excellent correlation with Pearson correlation coefficient R2 of 0.74 was seen and Bland-Altman plots demonstrated no systematic bias.

CD69 upregulation on T cells as an in vitro marker for delayed-type drug hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND: T cells play a key role in delayed-type drug hypersensitivity reactions. Their reactivity can be assessed by their proliferation in response to the drug in the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT). However, the LTT imposes limitations in terms of practicability, and an alternative method that is easier to implement than the LTT would be desirable. METHODS: Four months to 12 years after acute drug hypersensitivity reactions, CD69 upregulation on T cells of 15 patients and five healthy controls was analyzed by flow cytometry. RESULTS: All 15 LTT-positive patients showed a significant increase of CD69 expression on T cells after 48 h of drug-stimulation exclusively with the drugs incriminated in drug-hypersensitivities. A stimulation index of 2 as cut-off value allowed discrimination between nonreactive and reactive T cells in LTT and CD69 upregulation. T cells (0.5-3%) showed CD69 up-regulation. The reactive cell population consisted of a minority of truly drug reactive T cells secreting cytokines and a higher number of bystander T cells activated by IL-2 and possibly other cytokines. CONCLUSIONS: CD69 upregulation was observed after 2 days in all patients with a positive LTT after 6 days, thus appearing to be a promising tool to identify drug-reactive T cells in the peripheral blood of patients with drug-hypersensitivity reactions.

Prevention of delayed cerebral vasospasm by continuous intrathecal infusion of glyceroltrinitrate and nimodipine in the rabbit model in vivo

OBJECTIVE: Intrathecal bolus administration of nitric oxide donors and calcium channel antagonists has been proposed to reduce cerebral vasospasm (CVS) in animal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) models. Intrathecal continuous administration of these substances for CVS prevention has not been extensively evaluated. This study compared the efficacy of continuous intrathecal infusions of the NO donor glyceroltrinitrate and nimodipine in preventing delayed CVS associated with SAH in an animal model in vivo. METHODS: New Zealand White rabbits were randomly assigned to six groups: no SAH/NaCl, no SAH/NO, no SAH/nimodipine, SAH/NaCl, SAH/NO, or SAH/nimodipine. Glyceroltrinitrate (GTN) at 0.5 microg/microl (0.5 microl/h) or nimodipine at 0.2 microg/microl (10 microl/h) or NaCl was continuously infused into the cisterna magna via an Alzet osmotic pump from day 0 to day 5 after injection of 1.0 ml autologous blood. The magnitude of spasm in the basilar artery was determined by comparison of pre- and posttreatment angiography and was calculated as proportional change in intraluminal diameter based on automatic measurements. RESULTS: A total of 55 experiments and 110 angiograms were performed. SAH was associated with vasoconstriction of the basilar artery (SAH/NaCl group 19.85+/-2.94%). Continuous intrathecal injection of GTN and nimodipine prevented SAH-induced CVS. There was significant prevention of CVS in animals treated with GTN (SAH/NO group 5.93+/-5.2%, n=11) and nimodipine (SAH/nimodipine group: 0.55+/-2.66%, n=9). There was no significant difference between the treatment groups and controls in prevention of CVS. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that prophylactic continuous intrathecal administration of either GTN or nimodipine equally prevents SAH-associated CVS in an animal model.

[The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting of observational studies]

Much of 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. 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 of 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. 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.

[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 che-cklist 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.

Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias

BACKGROUND: The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

Delayed diagnosis of HIV infection and late initiation of antiretroviral therapy in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES: To investigate delayed HIV diagnosis and late initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. METHODS: Two sub-populations were included: 1915 patients with HIV diagnosis from 1998 to 2007 and within 3 months of cohort registration (group A), and 1730 treatment-naïve patients with CD4>or=200 cells/microL before their second cohort visit (group B). In group A, predictors for low initial CD4 cell counts were examined with a median regression. In group B, we studied predictors for CD4<200 cells/microL without ART despite cohort follow-up. RESULTS: Median initial CD4 cell count in group A was 331 cells/microL; 31% and 10% were <200 and <50 cells/microL, respectively. Risk factors for low CD4 count were age and non-White race. Homosexual transmission, intravenous drug use and living alone were protective. In group B, 30% initiated ART with CD4>or=200 cells/microL; 18% and 2% dropped to CD4 <200 and <50 cells/microL without ART, respectively. Sub-Saharan origin was associated with lower probability of CD4 <200 cells/microL without ART during follow-up. Median CD4 count at ART initiation was 207 and 253 cells/microL in groups A and B, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CD4<200 cells/microL and, particularly, CD4<50 cells/microL before starting ART are predominantly caused by late presentation. Earlier HIV diagnosis is paramount.

[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.