Beam Test of a Segmented Foil SEM Grid

A prototype Secondary-electron Emission Monitor (SEM) was installed in the 8 GeV proton transport line for the MiniBooNE experiment at Fermilab. The SEM is a segmented grid made with 5 um Ti foils, intended for use in the 120 GeV NuMI beam at Fermilab. Similar to previous workers, we found that the full collection of the secondary electron signal requires a bias voltage to draw the ejected electrons cleanly off the foils, and this effect is more pronounced at larger beam intensity. The beam centroid and width resolutions of the SEM were measured at beam widths of 3, 7, and 8 mm, and compared to calculations. Extrapolating the data from this beam test, we expect a centroid and width resolutions of 20um and 25 um, respectively, in the NuMI beam which has 1 mm spot size.Comment: submitted to Nucl. Instr. Meth.

The multilevel trigger system of the DIRAC experiment

The multilevel trigger system of the DIRAC experiment at CERN is presented. It includes a fast first level trigger as well as various trigger processors to select events with a pair of pions having a low relative momentum typical of the physical process under study. One of these processors employs the drift chamber data, another one is based on a neural network algorithm and the others use various hit-map detector correlations. Two versions of the trigger system used at different stages of the experiment are described. The complete system reduces the event rate by a factor of 1000, with efficiency $\geq$95% of detecting the events in the relative momentum range of interest.Comment: 21 pages, 11 figure

Meta-analysis of antibiotics versus appendicectomy for non-perforated acute appendicitis

Background: For more than a century, appendicectomy has been the treatment of choice for appendicitis. Recent trials have challenged this view. This study assessed the benefits and harms of antibiotic therapy compared with appendicectomy in patients with non-perforated appendicitis. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted for randomized trials comparing antibiotic therapy with appendicectomy in patients with non-perforated appendicitis. Key outcomes were analysed using random-effects meta-analysis, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: Five studies including 1116 patients reported major complications in 25 (4.9 per cent) of 510 patients in the antibiotic and 41 (8.4 per cent) of 489 in the appendicectomy group: risk difference -2.6 (95 per cent c.i. -6.3 to 1.1) per cent (low-quality evidence). Minor complications occurred in 11 (2.2 per cent) of 510 and 61 (12.5 per cent) of 489 patients respectively: risk difference -7.2 (-18.1 to 3.8) per cent (very low-quality evidence). Of 550 patients in the antibiotic group, 47 underwent appendicectomy within 1 month: pooled estimate 8.2 (95 per cent c.i. 5.2 to 11.8) per cent (high-quality evidence). Within 1 year, appendicitis recurred in 114 of 510 patients in the antibiotic group: pooled estimate 22.6 (15.6 to 30.4) per cent (high-quality evidence). For every 100 patients with non-perforated appendicitis, initial antibiotic therapy compared with prompt appendicectomy may result in 92 fewer patients receiving surgery within the first month, and 23 more experiencing recurrent appendicitis within the first year. Conclusion: The choice of medical versus surgical management in patients with clearly uncomplicated appendicitis is value-and preference-dependent, suggesting a change in practice towards shared decision-making is necessary.Peer reviewe

Rapid-Test Based Identification of Influenza as an Etiology of Acute Febrile Illness in Cambodia

Influenza can be manifested as an acute febrile illness, with symptoms similar to many pathogens endemic to Cambodia. The objective of this study was to evaluate the Quickvue influenza A+B rapid test to identify the etiology of acute febrile illness in Cambodia. During December 2006–May 2008, patients enrolled in a study to identify the etiology of acute febrile illnesses were tested for influenza by real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) and Quickvue influenza A+B rapid test. The prevalence of influenza was 19.7% by RT-PCR. Compared with RT-PCR, the sensitivity and specificity of the rapid test were 52.1% and 92.5%, respectively. The influenza rapid test identified the etiology in 10.2% of enrollees and ≥ 35% during peak times of influenza activity. This study suggests that rapid influenza tests may be useful during peak times of influenza activity in an area where several different etiologies can present as an acute febrile illness

What differences are detected by superiority trials or ruled out by noninferiority trials? A cross-sectional study on a random sample of two-hundred two-arms parallel group randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND: The smallest difference to be detected in superiority trials or the largest difference to be ruled out in noninferiority trials is a key determinant of sample size, but little guidance exists to help researchers in their choice. The objectives were to examine the distribution of differences that researchers aim to detect in clinical trials and to verify that those differences are smaller in noninferiority compared to superiority trials. METHODS: Cross-sectional study based on a random sample of two hundred two-arm, parallel group superiority (100) and noninferiority (100) randomized clinical trials published between 2004 and 2009 in 27 leading medical journals. The main outcome measure was the smallest difference in favor of the new treatment to be detected (superiority trials) or largest unfavorable difference to be ruled out (noninferiority trials) used for sample size computation, expressed as standardized difference in proportions, or standardized difference in means. Student t test and analysis of variance were used. RESULTS: The differences to be detected or ruled out varied considerably from one study to the next; e.g., for superiority trials, the standardized difference in means ranged from 0.007 to 0.87, and the standardized difference in proportions from 0.04 to 1.56. On average, superiority trials were designed to detect larger differences than noninferiority trials (standardized difference in proportions: mean 0.37 versus 0.27, P = 0.001; standardized difference in means: 0.56 versus 0.40, P = 0.006). Standardized differences were lower for mortality than for other outcomes, and lower in cardiovascular trials than in other research areas. CONCLUSIONS: Superiority trials are designed to detect larger differences than noninferiority trials are designed to rule out. The variability between studies is considerable and is partly explained by the type of outcome and the medical context. A more explicit and rational approach to choosing the difference to be detected or to be ruled out in clinical trials may be desirable

What differences are detected by superiority trials or ruled out by noninferiority trials? A cross-sectional study on a random sample of two-hundred two-arms parallel group randomized clinical trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The smallest difference to be detected in superiority trials or the largest difference to be ruled out in noninferiority trials is a key determinant of sample size, but little guidance exists to help researchers in their choice. The objectives were to examine the distribution of differences that researchers aim to detect in clinical trials and to verify that those differences are smaller in noninferiority compared to superiority trials.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cross-sectional study based on a random sample of two hundred two-arm, parallel group superiority (100) and noninferiority (100) randomized clinical trials published between 2004 and 2009 in 27 leading medical journals. The main outcome measure was the smallest difference in favor of the new treatment to be detected (superiority trials) or largest unfavorable difference to be ruled out (noninferiority trials) used for sample size computation, expressed as standardized difference in proportions, or standardized difference in means. Student t test and analysis of variance were used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The differences to be detected or ruled out varied considerably from one study to the next; e.g., for superiority trials, the standardized difference in means ranged from 0.007 to 0.87, and the standardized difference in proportions from 0.04 to 1.56. On average, superiority trials were designed to detect larger differences than noninferiority trials (standardized difference in proportions: mean 0.37 versus 0.27, <it>P </it>= 0.001; standardized difference in means: 0.56 versus 0.40, <it>P </it>= 0.006). Standardized differences were lower for mortality than for other outcomes, and lower in cardiovascular trials than in other research areas.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Superiority trials are designed to detect larger differences than noninferiority trials are designed to rule out. The variability between studies is considerable and is partly explained by the type of outcome and the medical context. A more explicit and rational approach to choosing the difference to be detected or to be ruled out in clinical trials may be desirable.</p

Regrets Associated with Providing Healthcare: Qualitative Study of Experiences of Hospital-Based Physicians and Nurses

Regret is an unavoidable corollary of clinical practice. Physicians and nurses perform countless clinical decisions and actions, in a context characterised by time pressure, information overload, complexity and uncertainty

Perceived Conflict of Interest in Health Science Partnerships

University scientists conducting research on topics of potential health concern often want to partner with a range of actors, including government entities, non-governmental organizations, and private enterprises. Such partnerships can provide access to needed resources, including funding. However, those who observe the results of such partnerships may judge those results based on who is involved. This set of studies seeks to assess how people perceive two hypothetical health science research collaborations. In doing so, it also tests the utility of using procedural justice concepts to assess perceptions of research legitimacy as a theoretical way to investigate conflict of interest perceptions. Findings show that including an industry collaborator has clear negative repercussions for how people see a research partnership and that these perceptions shape people’s willingness to see the research as a legitimate source of knowledge. Additional research aimed at further communicating procedures that might mitigate the impact of industry collaboration is suggested