The Application of 4D Seismic in Niger Delta Basin: A Review

Time-lapse seismic also known as 4D seismic is one of the advanced techniques employed in the oil and gas industry for petroleum production management and monitoring for over 20years. It involves carrying out two or more 3D seismic at different calendar times, before and after production over the same reservoir. We present advances in Time Lapse 3D seismic (also known as 4D seismic) and its application in the Niger Delta basin of Nigeria. Over the years, the technique has been used in Niger Delta to understand reservoir drainage performance, enable better well placement, identifying bypassed oil, detecting fluid communication, understanding of internal architecture of the reservoirs, and locating infill wells for future re-development. 4D seismic has demonstrated its potential and it is fast becoming a standard tool in the oil companies. DOI: 10.7176/APTA/83-05 Publication date: February 29th 202

Stakeholder views on publication bias in health services research

Objectives: While the presence of publication bias in clinical research is well documented, little is known about its role in the reporting of health services research. This paper explores stakeholder perceptions and experiences with regard to the role of publication and related biases in quantitative research relating to the quality, accessibility and organization of health services. Methods: We present findings from semi-structured interviews with those responsible for the funding, publishing and/or conduct of quantitative health services research, primarily in the UK. Additional data collection includes interviews with health care decision makers as ‘end users’ of health services research, and a focus group with patient and service user representatives. The final sample comprised 24 interviews and eight focus group participants. Results: Many study participants felt unable to say with any degree of certainty whether publication bias represents a significant problem in quantitative health services research. Participants drew broad contrasts between externally funded and peer reviewed research on the one hand, and end user funded quality improvement projects on the other, with the latter perceived as more vulnerable to selective publication and author over-claiming. Multiple study objectives, and a general acceptance of ‘mess and noise’ in the data and its interpretation was seen to reduce the importance attached to replicable estimates of effect sizes in health services research. The relative absence of external scrutiny, either from manufacturers of interventions or health system decision makers, added to this general sense of ‘low stakes’ of health services research. As a result, while many participants advocated study pre-registration and using protocols to pre-identify outcomes, others saw this as an unwarranted imposition. Conclusions: This study finds that incentives towards publication and related bias are likely to be present, but not to the same degree as in clinical research. In health services research, these were seen as being offset by other forms of ‘novelty’ bias in the reporting and publishing of research findings

Assessment of publication bias and outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews of health services and delivery research:A meta-epidemiological study

Strategies to identify and mitigate publication bias and outcome reporting bias are frequently adopted in systematic reviews of clinical interventions but it is not clear how often these are applied in systematic reviews relating to quantitative health services and delivery research (HSDR). We examined whether these biases are mentioned and/or otherwise assessed in HSDR systematic reviews, and evaluated associating factors to inform future practice. We randomly selected 200 quantitative HSDR systematic reviews published in the English language from 2007-2017 from the Health Systems Evidence database (www.healthsystemsevidence.org). We extracted data on factors that may influence whether or not authors mention and/or assess publication bias or outcome reporting bias. We found that 43% (n = 85) of the reviews mentioned publication bias and 10% (n = 19) formally assessed it. Outcome reporting bias was mentioned and assessed in 17% (n = 34) of all the systematic reviews. Insufficient number of studies, heterogeneity and lack of pre-registered protocols were the most commonly reported impediments to assessing the biases. In multivariable logistic regression models, both mentioning and formal assessment of publication bias were associated with: inclusion of a meta-analysis; being a review of intervention rather than association studies; higher journal impact factor, and; reporting the use of systematic review guidelines. Assessment of outcome reporting bias was associated with: being an intervention review; authors reporting the use of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE), and; inclusion of only controlled trials. Publication bias and outcome reporting bias are infrequently assessed in HSDR systematic reviews. This may reflect the inherent heterogeneity of HSDR evidence and different methodological approaches to synthesising the evidence, lack of awareness of such biases, limits of current tools and lack of pre-registered study protocols for assessing such biases. Strategies to help raise awareness of the biases, and methods to minimise their occurrence and mitigate their impacts on HSDR systematic reviews, are needed

Haematological and serum biochemical parameters of broiler chickens fed varying dietary levels of fermented castor oil seed meal (Ricinus communis L.) and different methionine sources in South Western Nigeria

In this experiment, the effect of varying dietary levels of fermented castor oil seed meal (FCSM) and different methionine sources (DL-methionine and herbal methionine) on haematological and serum biochemical parameters of broilers. A total of 240 one-day-old Anak broiler chicks were used in the experiment lasted 56 days. The dietary experiment was laid out as a completely randomized design in a 4 × 2 factorial arrangement consisting of 4 dietary levels of FCSM (0, 50, 100 and 150 g/kg) and 2 methionine sources (DL-methionine and herbal methionine). The birds were weighed and randomly distributed into 8 treatments with 3 replicates of 10 birds each. During the starter phase of the experiment, haemoglobin, red blood cell count, mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration and eosinophil counts were higher (

Health inequalities and infectious diseases : a rapid review of reviews

Executive summary: Public Health England (PHE) commissioned a team, led from University of Warwick, to conduct a review to describe the existing health inequalities presented in the academic literature, relating to key infectious disease topics in the United Kingdom (UK). For this work, PHE had specific interest in three dimensions of inequalities: protected characteristics, socioeconomic inequalities, and inclusion health groups (specifically, vulnerable migrants, people experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping, people who engage in sex work, and Gypsy Roma and Traveller communities). The infectious disease topics of interest were tuberculosis, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), sexually transmitted infections (STIs), Hepatitis C (HCV), vaccination, and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). We conducted a rapid overview of reviews to identify and synthesise existing reviews which have explored inequalities in the topics of interest, relevant to the UK. Key findings: We identified 84 reviews that explored inequalities in at least one of the three dimensions of interest. The reviews spanned through all the specified infectious diseases and more (Figure E1). The methodological quality of the included reviews varied significantly based on the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews version 2 (AMSTAR2) criteria. Only 14% explicitly reported preregistered protocol, 22% had a comprehensive literature search strategy, 29% performed risk of bias of included studies, 46% accounted for risk of bias while interpreting the results of the review and 69% provided satisfactory explanation for and discussion of heterogeneity observed in the findings of the review. Only about 49% of the reviews performed meta-analysis. However, 98% of those that performed meta-analyses used appropriate methods, 54% assessed the impact of risk of bias on the results of meta-analysis and 46% performed adequate assessment of the presence and likely impact of publication bias

Individual and contextual factors associated with maternal and child health essential health services indicators : a multilevel analysis of universal health coverage in 58 low & middle-income countries

Background: Universal health coverage (UHC) is part of the global health agenda to tackle the lack of access to essential health services (EHS). This study developed and tested models to examine the individual, neighbourhood and country-level determinants associated with access to coverage of EHS under the UHC agenda in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: We used datasets from the Demographic and Health Surveys of 58 LMICs. Suboptimal and optimal access to EHS were computed using nine indicators. Descriptive and multilevel multinomial regression analyses were performed using R & STATA. Result: The prevalence of suboptimal and optimal access to EHS varies across the countries, the former ranging from 5.55% to 100%, and the latter ranging from 0% to 90.36% both in Honduras and Colombia, respectively. In the fully adjusted model, children of mothers with lower educational attainment (RRR 2.11, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.92 to 2.32) and those from poor households (RRR 1.79, 95%CrI 1.61 to 2.00) were more likely to have suboptimal access to EHS. Also, those with health insurance (RRR 0.72, 95% CrI 0.59 to 0.85) and access to media (RRR 0.59, 95% CrI 0.51 to 0.67) were at lesser risk of having suboptimal EHS. Similar trends, although in the opposite direction, were observed in the analysis involving optimal access. The intra-neighbourhood and intra-country correlation coefficients were estimated using the intercept component variance; 57.50%% and 27.70% of variances in suboptimal access to EHS are attributable to the neighbourhood and country-level factors. Conclusion: Neighbourhood-level poverty, illiteracy, and rurality modify access to EHS coverage in LMICs. Interventions aimed at achieving the 2030 UHC goals should consider integrating socioeconomic and living conditions of people

Global prevalence and trends in hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus among slum residents : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective First, to obtain regional estimates of prevalence of hypertension and type 2 diabetes in urban slums; and second, to compare these with those in urban and rural areas. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Eligibility criteria Studies that reported hypertension prevalence using the definition of blood pressure ≥140/90 mm Hg and/or prevalence of type 2 diabetes. Information sources Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL and EMBASE from inception to December 2020. Risk of bias Two authors extracted relevant data and assessed risk of bias independently using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guideline. Synthesis of results We used random-effects meta-analyses to pool prevalence estimates. We examined time trends in the prevalence estimates using meta-regression regression models with the prevalence estimates as the outcome variable and the calendar year of the publication as the predictor. Results A total of 62 studies involving 108 110 participants met the inclusion criteria. Prevalence of hypertension and type 2 diabetes in slum populations ranged from 4.2% to 52.5% and 0.9% to 25.0%, respectively. In six studies presenting comparator data, all from the Indian subcontinent, slum residents were 35% more likely to be hypertensive than those living in comparator rural areas and 30% less likely to be hypertensive than those from comparator non-slum urban areas. Limitations of evidence Of the included studies, only few studies from India compared the slum prevalence estimates with those living in non-slum urban and rural areas; this limits the generalisability of the finding. Interpretation The burden of hypertension and type 2 diabetes varied widely between countries and regions and, to some degree, also within countries. PROSPERO registration number CRD42017077381

Corrigendum to : variation in financial protection and its association with health expenditure indicators : an analysis of low- and middle-income countries

In the originally published version of this manuscript, there was an error in the title. The title should read: "Variation in financial protection and its association with health expenditure indicators: an analysis of low- and middle-income countries'', instead of: "Variation in financial protection and it association with health expenditure indicators: an analysis of low- and middle-income countries''. This error has been corrected online and in print

Publication and related bias in quantitative health services & delivery research : systematic reviews, case studies, inception cohorts and informant interviews

Background Bias in the publication and reporting of research findings (referred to as publication and related bias here) poses a major threat in evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making. Although this bias has been well documented in clinical research, little is known about its occurrence and magnitude in health services and delivery research. Objectives To obtain empirical evidence on publication and related bias in quantitative health services and delivery research; to examine current practice in detecting/mitigating this bias in health services and delivery research systematic reviews; and to explore stakeholders’ perception and experiences concerning such bias. Methods The project included five distinct but interrelated work packages. Work package 1 was a systematic review of empirical and methodological studies. Work package 2 involved a survey (meta-epidemiological study) of randomly selected systematic reviews of health services and delivery research topics (n = 200) to evaluate current practice in the assessment of publication and outcome reporting bias during evidence synthesis. Work package 3 included four case studies to explore the applicability of statistical methods for detecting such bias in health services and delivery research. In work package 4 we followed up four cohorts of health services and delivery research studies (total n = 300) to ascertain their publication status, and examined whether publication status was associated with statistical significance or perceived ‘positivity’ of study findings. Work package 5 involved key informant interviews with diverse health services and delivery research stakeholders (n = 24), and a focus group discussion with patient and service user representatives (n = 8). Results We identified only four studies that set out to investigate publication and related bias in health services and delivery research in work package 1. Three of these studies focused on health informatics research and one concerned health economics. All four studies reported evidence of the existence of this bias, but had methodological weaknesses. We also identified three health services and delivery research systematic reviews in which findings were compared between published and grey/unpublished literature. These reviews found that the quality and volume of evidence and effect estimates sometimes differed significantly between published and unpublished literature. Work package 2 showed low prevalence of considering/assessing publication (43%) and outcome reporting (17%) bias in health services and delivery research systematic reviews. The prevalence was lower among reviews of associations than among reviews of interventions. The case studies in work package 3 highlighted limitations in current methods for detecting these biases due to heterogeneity and potential confounders. Follow-up of health services and delivery research cohorts in work package 4 showed positive association between publication status and having statistically significant or positive findings. Diverse views concerning publication and related bias and insights into how features of health services and delivery research might influence its occurrence were uncovered through the interviews with health services and delivery research stakeholders and focus group discussion conducted in work package 5. Conclusions This study provided prima facie evidence on publication and related bias in quantitative health services and delivery research. This bias does appear to exist, but its prevalence and impact may vary depending on study characteristics, such as study design, and motivation for conducting the evaluation. Emphasis on methodological novelty and focus beyond summative assessments may mitigate/lessen the risk of such bias in health services and delivery research. Methodological and epistemological diversity in health services and delivery research and changing landscape in research publication need to be considered when interpreting the evidence. Collection of further empirical evidence and exploration of optimal health services and delivery research practice are required