Transformations in French Anti-Semitism?

The increase in the number of anti-Semitic acts since the start of the Second Intifada has sparked off a broad debate on the return of anti-Semitism in France. This article focuses on the question whether this anti-Semitism is still based on the alleged superiority of the Aryan race as in the time of Nazism, or if it represents the birth of a “new Judeophobia” that is more based on anti-Zionism and the polemical mixing of “Jews,” “Israelis,” and “Zionists.” One supposed effect of this transformation is that anti-Semitism is in the process of changing camps and migrating from the extreme right to the extreme left of the political arena, to the “altermondialistes,” the communists, and the “neo-Trotskyists.” The article provides answers to the following questions: Are anti-Jewish views on the increase in France today? Do these opinions correlate with negative opinions of other minorities, notably Maghrebians and Muslims? Do they tend to develop among voters and sympathizers with the extreme right or on the extreme left of the political spectrum? And how are they related to opinions concerning Zionism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? My evaluation of the transformations in French anti-Semitism relies on two types of data. The first is police and gendarmerie statistics published by the National Consultative Committee on Human Rights (CNCDH), which is charged with presenting the prime minister with an annual report on the struggle against racism and xenophobia in France. The other is data from surveys, notably surveys commissioned by CNCDH for its annual report and surveys conducted at the Center for Political Research (CEVIPOF) at Sciences Po (Paris Institute for Political Research). The data show that anti-Semitic opinions follow a different logic from acts, that the social, cultural, and political profile of anti-Semites remains very close to that of other types of racists, and that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism do not overlap exactly.

Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in leading oral implantology journals

OBJECTIVES Abstracts of systematic reviews are of critical importance, as consumers of research often do not access the full text. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading oral implantology journals. METHODS Six specialty journals were screened for SRs between 2008 and 2012. A 16-item checklist, based on the PRISMA statement, was used to examine the completeness of abstract reporting. RESULTS Ninety-three SR abstracts were included in this study. The majority were published in Clinical Oral Implants Research (43%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 72.5% (95% CI: 70.8-74.2). Most abstracts were structured (97.9%), adequately reporting objectives (97.9%) and conclusions (93.6%). Conversely, inadequate reporting of methods of the study, background (79.6%), appraisal (65.6%), and data synthesis (65.6%) were observed. Registration of reviews was not reported in any of the included abstracts. Multivariate analysis revealed no difference in reporting quality with respect to continent, number of authors, or meta-analysis conduct. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study suggest that the reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in implantology journals requires further improvement. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Better reporting of SR abstracts is particularly important in ensuring the reliability of research findings, ultimately promoting the practice of evidence-based dentistry. Optimal reporting of SR abstracts should be encouraged, preferably by endorsing the PRISMA for abstracts guidelines.

Reporting completeness of abstracts of systematic reviews published in leading dental specialty journals

The aim of this study was to investigate the reporting completeness of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading dental specialty journals. Electronic and supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify SRs published in seven dental specialty journals and in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Abstract reporting completeness was evaluated using a checklist derived from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (prisma) guidelines. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. Two-hundred and eighteen SR abstracts were identified. Reporting of interventions (94%), objectives (96%), data sources (81%), eligibility criteria (77%), and conclusions (97%) was adequate in the majority of reviews. However, inadequate reporting of participants (18%), results (42%), effect size (14%), level of significance (60%), and trial registration (100%) was commonplace. The mean overall reporting score was 79.1% (95% CI, 77.6-80.6). Only journal of publication was a significant predictor of overall reporting, with inferior results for all journals relative to Cochrane reviews, with scores ranging from -4.3% (95% CI, -8.74 to 0.08) to -35.6% (95% CI, -42.0 to -24.3) for the International Journal of Prosthodontics and the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, respectively. Improved reporting of dental SR abstracts is needed and should be encouraged, as these abstracts may underpin influential clinical decisions.

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in dental specialty journals

OBJECTIVES A widespread assessment of the reporting of RCT abstracts published in dental journals is lacking. Our aim was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts published in leading dental specialty journals using, as a guide, the CONSORT for abstracts checklist. METHODS Electronic and supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify RCTs published in seven dental specialty journals. The quality of abstract reporting was evaluated using a modified checklist based on the CONSORT for abstracts checklist. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS 228 RCT abstracts were identified. Reporting of interventions, objectives and conclusions within abstracts were adequate. Inadequately reported items included: title, participants, outcomes, random number generation, numbers randomized and effect size estimate. Randomization restrictions, allocation concealment, blinding, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis, harms, registration and funding were rarely described. CONCLUSIONS The mean overall reporting quality score was suboptimal at 62.5% (95% CI: 61.9, 63.0). Significantly better abstract reporting was noted in certain specialty journals and in multicenter trials.

Are clustering effects accounted for in statistical analysis in leading dental specialty journals?

OBJECTIVES In dental research multiple site observations within patients or taken at various time intervals are commonplace. These clustered observations are not independent; statistical analysis should be amended accordingly. This study aimed to assess whether adjustment for clustering effects during statistical analysis was undertaken in five specialty dental journals. METHODS Thirty recent consecutive issues of Orthodontics (OJ), Periodontology (PJ), Endodontology (EJ), Maxillofacial (MJ) and Paediatric Dentristry (PDJ) journals were hand searched. Articles requiring adjustment accounting for clustering effects were identified and statistical techniques used were scrutinized. RESULTS Of 559 studies considered to have inherent clustering effects, adjustment for this was made in the statistical analysis in 223 (39.1%). Studies published in the Periodontology specialty accounted for clustering effects in the statistical analysis more often than articles published in other journals (OJ vs. PJ: OR=0.21, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.37, p<0.001; MJ vs. PJ: OR=0.02, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.07, p<0.001; PDJ vs. PJ: OR=0.14, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.28, p<0.001; EJ vs. PJ: OR=0.11, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.22, p<0.001). A positive correlation was found between increasing prevalence of clustering effects in individual specialty journals and correct statistical handling of clustering (r=0.89). CONCLUSIONS The majority of studies in 5 dental specialty journals (60.9%) examined failed to account for clustering effects in statistical analysis where indicated, raising the possibility of inappropriate decreases in p-values and the risk of inappropriate inferences.

Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?

The aims of this study were to assess and compare the methodological quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) using AMSTAR and to compare the prevalence of meta-analysis in both review types. A literature search was undertaken to identify SRs that consisted of hand-searching five major orthodontic journals [American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics and Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (February 2002 to July 2011)] and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2000 to July 2011. Methodological quality of the included reviews was gauged using the AMSTAR tool involving 11 key methodological criteria with a score of 0 or 1 given for each criterion. A cumulative grade was given for the paper overall (0-11); an overall score of 4 or less represented poor methodological quality, 5-8 was considered fair and 9 or greater was deemed to be good. In total, 109 SRs were identified in the five major journals and on the CDSR. Of these, 26 (23.9%) were in the CDSR. The mean overall AMSTAR score was 6.2 with 21.1% of reviews satisfying 9 or more of the 11 criteria; a similar prevalence of poor reviews (22%) was also noted. Multiple linear regression indicated that reviews published in the CDSR (P < 0.01); and involving meta-analysis (β = 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.72, 2.07, P < 0.001) showed greater concordance with AMSTAR.

Self-Reported Capabilities Among Young Male Adults in Switzerland: Translation and Psychometric Evaluation of a German, French and Italian Version of a Closed Survey Instrument

There is a shortage of empirical applications of the capability approach that employ closed survey instruments to assess self-reported capabilities. However, for those few instruments that have been designed and administered through surveys until now, no psychometric properties (reliability, validity, and factor structure) were reported. The purpose of this study is the assessment of the psychometric properties of three new language versions (German, French, and Italian) of an established (English) set of eight self-reported capability items. The set of items is taken from a previously published British study by Anand and van Hees (J Soc Econ 35(2):268–284, 2006). Our sample consists of 17,152 young male adults aged 18–25 years from the three major language regions in Switzerland. The results indicate good reliability of the three language versions. The results from the exploratory factor analyses suggest a one-dimensional factor structure for seven domain specific items. Furthermore, the results from multiple regression analyses suggest that a global summary item on overall capabilities represents a measurement alternative to the set of seven domain specific capability items. Finally, the results confirm the applicability of the closed capability instrument in a large scale survey questionnaire and represent the first attempt to measure self-reported capabilities in Switzerland.

New approach to direct stenting using a novel "all-in-one" coronary stent system via 5 French diagnostic catheters: a pilot study

OBJECTIVES We sought to evaluate the strategy success and short term clinical outcomes of direct stenting via 5 French (F) diagnostic catheters using a novel bare metal stent with integrated delivery system (IDS) (Svelte Medical Systems, New Providence, NJ) and compare the results to a conventionally treated matched group. METHODS Fifteen consecutive patients with lesions deemed suitable for direct stenting using a bare metal stent were included. The primary endpoint was the strategy success defined as the ability to successfully treat a target lesion via a 5 F diagnostic catheter with a good angiographic result (TIMI III flow, residual stenosis ≤20%). Procedure and fluoroscopy times, contrast agent use, cost, and short-term clinical outcomes were compared to a matched group treated via conventional stenting. RESULTS The primary endpoint was reached in 14/15 patients (93%). There were no significant differences in procedural (58.6 min ± 12.7 vs. 57.4 min ± 14.2) or fluoroscopy times (10.0 min ± 4.3 vs.10.1 min ± 3.9) or contrast agent use (193.7 ml ± 54.8 vs. 181.4 ml ± 35.6). However, there were significant reductions in materials used in the study group compared to the control group equating to cost savings of almost US $600 per case (US $212.44 ± 258.09 vs. US $804.69 ± 468.11; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Direct stenting using a novel bare metal stent with an IDS via 5 F diagnostic catheters is a viable alternative to conventional stenting in selected patients and is associated with significant cost savings.