[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.

STROBE Statement: linee guida per descrivere gli studi osservazionali

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, casecontrol, 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.

When one depends on the other: reporting of interaction in case-control and cohort studies

BACKGROUND: Interaction refers to the situation in which the effect of 1 exposure on an outcome differs across strata of another exposure. We did a survey of epidemiologic studies published in leading journals to examine how interaction is assessed and reported. METHODS: We selected 150 case-control and 75 cohort studies published between May 2001 and May 2007 in leading general medicine, epidemiology, and clinical specialist journals. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 225 studies, 138 (61%) addressed interaction. Among these, 25 (18%) presented no data or only a P value or a statement of statistical significance; 40 (29%) presented stratum-specific effect estimates but no meaningful comparison of these estimates; and 58 (42%) presented stratum-specific estimates and appropriate tests for interaction. Fifteen articles (11%) presented the individual effects of both exposures and also their joint effect or a product term, providing sufficient information to interpret interaction on an additive and multiplicative scale. Reporting was poorest in articles published in clinical specialist articles and most adequate in articles published in general medicine journals, with epidemiology journals in an intermediate position. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of articles reporting cohort and case-control studies address possible interactions between exposures. However, in about half of these, the information provided was unsatisfactory, and only 1 in 10 studies reported data that allowed readers to interpret interaction effects on an additive and multiplicative scale.

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.

Acute pain therapy in German hospitals as competitive factor : Do competition, ownership and case severity influence the practice of acute pain therapy?

BACKGROUND Due to the implementation of the diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system, the competitive pressure on German hospitals increased. In this context it has been shown that acute pain management offers economic benefits for hospitals. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of the competitive situation, the ownership and the economic resources required on structures and processes for acute pain management. MATERIAL AND METHODS A standardized questionnaire on structures and processes of acute pain management was mailed to the 885 directors of German departments of anesthesiology listed as members of the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin). RESULTS For most hospitals a strong regional competition existed; however, this parameter affected neither the implementation of structures nor the recommended treatment processes for pain therapy. In contrast, a clear preference for hospitals in private ownership to use the benchmarking tool QUIPS (quality improvement in postoperative pain therapy) was found. These hospitals also presented information on coping with the management of pain in the corporate clinic mission statement more often and published information about the quality of acute pain management in the quality reports more frequently. No differences were found between hospitals with different forms of ownership in the implementation of acute pain services, quality circles, expert standard pain management and the implementation of recommended processes. Hospitals with a higher case mix index (CMI) had a certified acute pain management more often. The corporate mission statement of these hospitals also contained information on how to cope with pain, presentation of the quality of pain management in the quality report, implementation of quality circles and the implementation of the expert standard pain management more frequently. There were no differences in the frequency of using the benchmarking tool QUIPS or the implementation of recommended treatment processes with respect to the CMI. CONCLUSION In this survey no effect of the competitive situation of hospitals on acute pain management could be demonstrated. Private ownership and a higher CMI were more often associated with structures of acute pain management which were publicly accessible in terms of hospital marketing.

Influence of Religious Institutions in the Creation and Implementation of Public Policy: The Case of Roman Catholic Argentina and Secular Uruguay

The strong presence of religious institutions in Latin America, especially the Roman Catholic Church, and their participation in the creation and implementation of public policy within a sovereign state can be counter-productive for the social development and progress of that specific country. Argentina and Uruguay and the social controversy of social issues of abortion and same-sex marriage are used as examples to establish the accuracy of the above statement. Historical, statistical, and legislative information about both topics in both countries show that the political power that the Roman Catholic Church has in the region is more an outdated influence than a reality, and the principle of secularization appears to be the most stabilizing philosophy for modern nations.

Fundamental Rights of workers in the Digital Age: A methodological approach from a case study. WP C.S.D.L.E. "Massimo D'Antona" .INT - 89/2011

The relationship between employer and worker is not only obligatory but above all, as Sinzheimer said, a ‘relationship of power’. In the Digital Age this statement is confirmed by the massive introduction of ICT in most of the companies that increase, in practice, employer’s supervisory powers. This is a worrying issue for two reasons: on one hand, ICT emerge as a new way to weaken the effectiveness of fundamental rights and the right to dignity of workers; and, on the other hand, Spanish legal system does not offer appropriate solutions to ensure that efficacy. Moreover, in a scenario characterized by a hybridization of legal systems models –in which traditional hard law methods are combined with soft law and self regulation instruments–, the role of our case law has become very important in this issue. Nevertheless, despite the increase of judicialization undergone, solutions offered by Courts are so different that do not give enough legal certainty. Facing this situation, I suggest a methodological approach –using Alchourron and Bulygin’s normative systems theory and Alexy’s fundamental rights theory– which can open new spaces of decision to legal operators in order to solve properly these problems. This proposal can allow setting a policy that guarantees fundamental rights of workers, deepening their human freedom in companies from the Esping-Andersen’s de-commodification perspective. With this purpose, I examine electronic communications in the company as a case study.

Does immediate loading affect clinical and patient-centered outcomes of mandibular 2-unsplinted-implant overdenture? : a 2-year within-case analysis

Objective To provide 2-year clinical- and patient-oriented data with regard to mandibular overdenture assisted by 2 immediately loaded unsplinted implants. Material and methods In this pre-post design, Phase-I clinical trial, 18 edentate individuals (62.4 ± 7.7 years) received a new set of complete denture. Then, following standard procedures, 3 threaded implants (OsseoSpeed TX™, Dentsply Implants, Mölndal, Sweden) were placed in the mandible in each patient, and locator abutments (Zest Anchors LLC, Escondido, U.S.A.) were inserted on the right and left side implants. The midline implant served as a control for within-patient comparison. The immediate loading was conducted within 24 h of surgery. Data were collected at baseline (T0), 12 (T1) and 24 (T2) months after immediate loading. The clinical outcomes included implant survival rate, crestal bone level changes and implant stability. These criteria were assessed through clinical and radiographic examinations as well as resonance frequency analysis. Patient-centered outcomes included patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life measured using validated questionnaires. Brunner-Langer approach was used for statistical analysis. Results Implant survival rate for immediate loaded implants was 91.7% at 2-year follow-up. None of the unloaded implants failed. There was no statistically significant difference at baseline and follow-ups with regard to clinical outcomes between loaded and unloaded implants. Patient satisfaction and quality of life improved (p < 0.0001) from baseline to 2-year follow-up. Conclusion Immediate loading protocol did not negatively affect clinical outcomes, satisfaction and quality of life of patients wearing 2-unsplinted-implant mandibular overdenture for 2 years. This conclusion requires confirmation by randomized control trials. Clinical significance statement Mandibular overdenture assisted by two immediately-loaded unsplinted implants is successful treatment based on 2-year clinical and patient-based outcomes.

Does immediate loading affect clinical and patient-centered outcomes of mandibular 2-unsplinted-implant overdenture? : a 2-year within-case analysis

Objective To provide 2-year clinical- and patient-oriented data with regard to mandibular overdenture assisted by 2 immediately loaded unsplinted implants. Material and methods In this pre-post design, Phase-I clinical trial, 18 edentate individuals (62.4 ± 7.7 years) received a new set of complete denture. Then, following standard procedures, 3 threaded implants (OsseoSpeed TX™, Dentsply Implants, Mölndal, Sweden) were placed in the mandible in each patient, and locator abutments (Zest Anchors LLC, Escondido, U.S.A.) were inserted on the right and left side implants. The midline implant served as a control for within-patient comparison. The immediate loading was conducted within 24 h of surgery. Data were collected at baseline (T0), 12 (T1) and 24 (T2) months after immediate loading. The clinical outcomes included implant survival rate, crestal bone level changes and implant stability. These criteria were assessed through clinical and radiographic examinations as well as resonance frequency analysis. Patient-centered outcomes included patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life measured using validated questionnaires. Brunner-Langer approach was used for statistical analysis. Results Implant survival rate for immediate loaded implants was 91.7% at 2-year follow-up. None of the unloaded implants failed. There was no statistically significant difference at baseline and follow-ups with regard to clinical outcomes between loaded and unloaded implants. Patient satisfaction and quality of life improved (p < 0.0001) from baseline to 2-year follow-up. Conclusion Immediate loading protocol did not negatively affect clinical outcomes, satisfaction and quality of life of patients wearing 2-unsplinted-implant mandibular overdenture for 2 years. This conclusion requires confirmation by randomized control trials. Clinical significance statement Mandibular overdenture assisted by two immediately-loaded unsplinted implants is successful treatment based on 2-year clinical and patient-based outcomes.

A concise statement of the principles of the only true church of Christ /

"A letter from James Whittaker": p. 16-23.

A correct statement of the circumstances that attended the last illness and death of Mrs. Southcott : with an account of the appearances exhibited on dissection : and the artifices that were employed to deceive her medical attendants /

Caption title: A statement of the circumstances attending the last illness of Joanna Southcott.

North Atlantic coast fisheries arbitration : the case of the United States before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague under the provisions of the Special agreement between the United States of America and Great Britain concluded January 27, 1909.

Two folded maps in pocket of v. 2 of appendix.