Search

The analysis of the ingestion of microplastics (MP) by biota is frequently performed through invasive procedures such as chemical digestion protocols or by histological analysis of thin sections. Nonetheless, both approaches lack spatial resolution and cannot offer information on regions in which MP particles potentially accumulate. Knowledge on accumulation zones of MP might enable the determination of a region of interest (ROI) for the analysis of effects or particle translocation into the surrounding tissue. A way of analyzing the digestive system of otherwise opaque organisms, is by rendering these organisms transparent. Different, promising approaches for the observation of ingested MP particles pose so called tissue clearing methods. They are currently applied to organs, tissue samples, or whole organisms, rendering the sample transparent and enable to look inside an otherwise opaque environment. Therefore, our goal was to adapt the CUBIC tissue clearing protocol (Clear, Un- obstructed Brain/Body Imaging Cocktails and Computational Analysis) for aquatic and terrestrial organisms of various functional feeding groups for the analysis of the uptake of fluorescent labeled microplastic (MP) particles. The adapted CUBIC method has led to transparency in all normally opaque organisms. It further offers a simple way of locating fluorescent labeled MP inside the digestive system of the different organisms while leaving them intact. Also see: https://micro2022.sciencesconf.org/428214/document, In MICRO 2022, Online Atlas Edition: Plastic Pollution from MACRO to nano

Background/Research question/Problem: Ensuring hospitals’ surge capacity for the management of substantial numbers of COVID-19 patients is a central goal during the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In Bavaria, Germany, decentralized localized structures based on integrated command centers [for full text, please go to the a.m. URL]

Background A meta-analysis as part of a systematic review aims to provide a thorough, comprehensive and unbiased statistical summary of data from the literature. However, relevant study results could be missing from a meta-analysis because of selective publication and inadequate dissemination. If missing outcome data differ systematically from published ones, a meta-analysis will be biased with an inaccurate assessment of the intervention effect. As part of the EU-funded OPEN project (www.open-project.eu) we conducted a systematic review that assessed whether the inclusion of data that were not published at all and/or published only in the grey literature influences pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses and leads to different interpretation. Methods and findings Systematic review of published literature (methodological research projects). Four bibliographic databases were searched up to February 2016 without restriction of publication year or language. Methodological research projects were considered eligible for inclusion if they reviewed a cohort of meta-analyses which (i) compared pooled effect estimates of meta-analyses of health care interventions according to publication status of data or (ii) examined whether the inclusion of unpublished or grey literature data impacts the result of a meta-analysis. Seven methodological research projects including 187 meta-analyses comparing pooled treatment effect estimates according to different publication status were identified. Two research projects showed that published data showed larger pooled treatment effects in favour of the intervention than unpublished or grey literature data (Ratio of ORs 1.15, 95% CI 1.04–1.28 and 1.34, 95% CI 1.09–1.66). In the remaining research projects pooled effect estimates and/or overall findings were not significantly changed by the inclusion of unpublished and/or grey literature data. The precision of the pooled estimate was increased with narrower 95% confidence interval. Conclusions Although we may anticipate that systematic reviews and meta-analyses not including unpublished or grey literature study results are likely to overestimate the treatment effects, current empirical research shows that this is only the case in a minority of reviews. Therefore, currently, a meta-analyst should particularly consider time, effort and costs when adding such data to their analysis. Future research is needed to identify which reviews may benefit most from including unpublished or grey data.

Hintergrund und Fragestellung: Seit 2011 werden gemäß Gesetz zur Neuordnung des Arzneimittelmarktes (AMNOG) Arzneimittel mit neuen Wirkstoffen einer Bewertung unterzogen. Die resultierenden Dokumente erhöhen nachweislich den Anteil an öffentlich verfügbaren Erkenntnissen. [zum vollständigen Text gelangen Sie über die oben angegebene URL], Gemeinsam informiert entscheiden; 17. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin

Background Dissemination bias in clinical research severely impedes informed decision-making not only for healthcare professionals and patients, but also for funders, research ethics committees, regulatory bodies and other stakeholder groups that make health-related decisions. Decisions based on incomplete and biased evidence cannot only harm people, but may also have huge financial implications by wasting resources on ineffective or harmful diagnostic and therapeutic measures, and unnecessary research. Owing to involvement of multiple stakeholders, it remains easy for any single group to assign responsibility for resolving the problem to others. Objective To develop evidence-informed general and targeted recommendations addressing the various stakeholders involved in knowledge generation and dissemination to help overcome the problem of dissemination bias on the basis of previously collated evidence. Methods Based on findings from systematic reviews, document analyses and surveys, we developed general and targeted draft recommendations. During a 2-day workshop in summer 2013, these draft recommendations were discussed with external experts and key stakeholders, and refined following a rigorous and transparent methodological approach. Results Four general, overarching recommendations applicable to all or most stakeholder groups were formulated, addressing (1) awareness raising, (2) implementation of targeted recommendations, (3) trial registration and results posting, and (4) systematic approaches to evidence synthesis. These general recommendations are complemented and specified by 47 targeted recommendations tailored towards funding agencies, pharmaceutical and device companies, research institutions, researchers (systematic reviewers and trialists), research ethics committees, trial registries, journal editors and publishers, regulatory agencies, benefit (health technology) assessment institutions and legislators. Conclusions Despite various recent examples of dissemination bias and several initiatives to reduce it, the problem of dissemination bias has not been resolved. Tailored recommendations based on a comprehensive approach will hopefully help increase transparency in biomedical research by overcoming the failure to disseminate negative findings.

Hintergrund und Fragestellung: Systematische Übersichtsarbeiten, die publizierte Forschung auf transparente Weise zusammenfassen, sind eine unerlässliche Grundlage für klinische und gesundheitspolitische Entscheidungen. Die Ergebnisse sind jedoch nicht valide, wenn Publikationen eine[for full text, please go to the a.m. URL], Prävention zwischen Evidenz und Eminenz; 15. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin

Hintergrund und Fragestellung: Auf wissenschaftlichen Konferenzen vorgestellte Studien sind durch eine elektronische Literatursuche oft schwer zu identifizieren. Diese sogenannte ‚graue Literatur‘ wird deshalb oft nicht in systematische Reviews (SRs) eingeschlossen, was zu Disseminations-Bias[for full text, please go to the a.m. URL], Prävention zwischen Evidenz und Eminenz; 15. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin

No abstract available.