Performance of fluorescence methods, radiographic examination and ICDAS II on occlusal surfaces in vitro

This study compared the performance of fluorescence-based methods, radiographic examination, and International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) II on occlusal surfaces. One hundred and nineteen permanent human molars were assessed twice by 2 experienced dentists using the laser fluorescence (LF and LFpen) and fluorescence camera (FC) devices, ICDAS II and bitewing radiographs (BW). After measuring, the teeth were histologically prepared and assessed for caries extension. The sensitivities for dentine caries detection were 0.86 (FC), 0.78 (LFpen), 0.73 (ICDAS II), 0.51 (LF) and 0.34 (BW). The specificities were 0.97 (BW), 0.89 (LF), 0.65 (ICDAS II), 0.63 (FC) and 0.56 (LFpen). BW presented the highest values of likelihood ratio (LR)+ (12.47) and LR- (0.68). Rank correlations with histology were 0.53 (LF), 0.52 (LFpen), 0.41 (FC), 0.59 (ICDAS II) and 0.57 (BW). The area under the ROC curve varied from 0.72 to 0.83. Inter- and intraexaminer intraclass correlation values were respectively 0.90 and 0.85 (LF), 0.93 and 0.87 (LFpen) and 0.85 and 0.76 (FC). The ICDAS II kappa values were 0.51 (interexaminer) and 0.61 (intraexaminer). The BW kappa values were 0.50 (interexaminer) and 0.62 (intraexaminer). The Bland and Altman limits of agreement were 46.0 and 38.2 (LF), 55.6 and 40.0 (LFpen) and 1.12 and 0.80 (FC), for intra- and interexaminer reproducibilities. The posttest probability for dentine caries detection was high for BW and LF. In conclusion, LFpen, FC and ICDAS II presented better sensitivity and LF and BW better specificity. ICDAS II combined with BW showed the best performance and is the best combination for detecting caries on occlusal surfaces.

Effect of Supplemental Oxygen versus Dobutamine Administration on Liver Oxygen Tension in dPP-Guided Normovolemic Pigs

Background: Difference in pulse pressure (dPP) confirms adequate intravascular filling as a prerequisite for tissue perfusion. We hypothesized that both oxygen and dobutamine increase liver tissue oxygen tension (ptO(2)). Methods: Eight anesthetized pigs received dPP-guided fluid management. Hepatic pO(2) was measured with Clark-type electrodes placed subcapsularly, and on the liver surface. Pigs received: (1) supplemental oxygen (F(i)O(2) 1.0); (2) dobutamine 2.5 mug/kg/min, and (3) dobutamine 5 mug/kg/min. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA followed by a Tukey post-test for multiple comparisons. ptO(2 )measured subcapsularly and at the liver surface were compared using the Bland-Altman plot. Results: Variation in F(i)O(2) changed local hepatic tissue ptO(2) [subcapsular measurement: 39 +/- 12 (F(i)O(2) 0.3), 89 +/- 35 mm Hg (F(i)O(2) 1.0, p = 0.01 vs. F(i)O(2) 0.3), 44 +/- 10 mm Hg (F(i)O(2) 0.3, p = 0.05 vs. F(i)O(2) 1.0); surface measurement: 52 +/- 35 (F(i)O(2) 0.3), 112 +/- 24 mm Hg (F(i)O(2) 1.0, p = 0.001 vs. F(i)O(2) 0.3), 54 +/- 24 mm Hg (F(i)O(2) 0.3, p = 0.001 vs. F(i)O(2) 1.0)]. Surface measurements were widely scattered compared to subcapsular measurements (bias: -15 mm Hg, precision: 76.3 mm Hg). Dobutamine did not affect hepatic oxygenation. Conclusion: Supplemental oxygen increased hepatic tissue pO(2) while dobutamine did not. Although less invasive, the use of surface measurements is discouraged.

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.

Radiographic analysis of femoroacetabular impingement with Hip2Norm-reliable and validated

The purpose of this study was to validate the accuracy, consistency, and reproducibility/reliability of a new method for correction of pelvic tilt and rotation of radiographic hip parameters for pincer type of femoroacetabular impingement on an anteroposterior pelvic radiograph. Thirty cadaver hips and 100 randomized, blinded AP pelvic radiographs were used for investigation. To detect the software accuracy, the calculated femoral head coverage and classic hip parameters determined with our software were compared to reference measurements based on CT scans or conventional radiographs in a neutral orientation as gold standard. To investigate software consistency, differences among the different parameters for each cadaver pelvis were calculated when reckoned back from a random to the neutral orientation. Intra- and interobserver comparisons were used to analyze the reliability and reproducibility of all parameters. All but two parameters showed a good-to-very good accuracy with the reference measurements. No relevant systematic errors were detected in the Bland-Altman analysis. Software consistency was good-to-very good for all parameters. A good-to-very good reliability and reproducibility was found for a substantial number of the evaluated radiographic acetabular parameters. The software appears to be an accurate, consistent, reliable, and reproducible method for analysis of acetabular pathomorphologies.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to verify an autophagic response.

[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.

Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the association of inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and lack of blinding with biased estimates of intervention effects varies with the nature of the intervention or outcome. DESIGN: Combined analysis of data from three meta-epidemiological studies based on collections of meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: 146 meta-analyses including 1346 trials examining a wide range of interventions and outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratios of odds ratios quantifying the degree of bias associated with inadequate or unclear allocation concealment, and lack of blinding, for trials with different types of intervention and outcome. A ratio of odds ratios <1 implies that inadequately concealed or non-blinded trials exaggerate intervention effect estimates. RESULTS: In trials with subjective outcomes effect estimates were exaggerated when there was inadequate or unclear allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios 0.69 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.82)) or lack of blinding (0.75 (0.61 to 0.93)). In contrast, there was little evidence of bias in trials with objective outcomes: ratios of odds ratios 0.91 (0.80 to 1.03) for inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and 1.01 (0.92 to 1.10) for lack of blinding. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of drug and non-drug interventions. Except for trials with all cause mortality as the outcome, the magnitude of bias varied between meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The average bias associated with defects in the conduct of randomised trials varies with the type of outcome. Systematic reviewers should routinely assess the risk of bias in the results of trials, and should report meta-analyses restricted to trials at low risk of bias either as the primary analysis or in conjunction with less restrictive analyses.

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.

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.