Development of a carbon fibre composite active mirror: Design and testing

Carbon fibre composite technology for lightweight mirrors is gaining increasing interest in the space- and ground-based astronomical communities for its low weight, ease of manufacturing, excellent thermal qualities and robustness. We present here first results of a project to design and produce a 27 cm diameter deformable carbon fibre composite mirror. The aim was to produce a high surface form accuracy as well as low surface roughness. As part of this programme, a passive mirror was developed to investigate stability and coating issues. Results from the manufacturing and polishing process are reported here. We also present results of a mechanical and thermal finite element analysis, as well as early experimental findings of the deformable mirror. Possible applications and future work are discussed.Comment: Accepted by Optical Engineering. Figures 1-7 on http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~sk/OEpaper_files

Green space in health research : An overview of common indicators of greenness

Human environments influence human health in both positive and negative ways. Green space is considered an environmental exposure that confers benefits to human health and has attracted a high level of interest from researchers, policy makers, and increasingly clinicians. Green space has been associated with a range of health benefits, such as improvements in physical, mental, and social wellbeing. There are different sources, metrics and indicators of green space used in research, all of which measure different aspects of the environment. It is important that readers of green space research understand the terminology used in this field, and what the green space indicators used in the studies represent in the real world. This paper provides an overview of the major definitions of green space and the indicators used to assess exposure for health practitioners, public health researchers, and health policy experts who may be interested in understanding this field more clearly, either in the provision of public health-promoting services or to undertake research

Design of a Wear Test Machine for Diamond Saw Segment

Diamond tools are used in a wide range of industrial areas such as construction industry, metal machining and exploration drilling. The diamond impregnated tools used in the stone and construction industry are metal matrix composites. Diamond saw blades are the most commonly used tools. The optimum operation of diamond saw blades is determined by the cutting action of the diamond grit and the bounding of the metal matrix. However the wear behavior of the diamond saw has been less studied Currently in the blade development, actual full blade tests often have to be conducted for optimization and the testing process is very slow and expensive to carry out. So the development of a testing machine that could reduce the blade development time would be very advantageous. This paper describes the design and construction of a wear apparatus which simulates the Wear conditions that a diamond impregnated saw blade experiences by using just a single segment. It is also our intention to present single segment wear tests on ceramic-based materials, which can be used for the testing and developing of a full blade diamond saw

Dealing with missing standard deviation and mean values in meta-analysis of continuous outcomes: a systematic review

Background: Rigorous, informative meta-analyses rely on availability of appropriate summary statistics or individual participant data. For continuous outcomes, especially those with naturally skewed distributions, summary information on the mean or variability often goes unreported. While full reporting of original trial data is the ideal, we sought to identify methods for handling unreported mean or variability summary statistics in meta-analysis. Methods: We undertook two systematic literature reviews to identify methodological approaches used to deal with missing mean or variability summary statistics. Five electronic databases were searched, in addition to the Cochrane Colloquium abstract books and the Cochrane Statistics Methods Group mailing list archive. We also conducted cited reference searching and emailed topic experts to identify recent methodological developments. Details recorded included the description of the method, the information required to implement the method, any underlying assumptions and whether the method could be readily applied in standard statistical software. We provided a summary description of the methods identified, illustrating selected methods in example meta-analysis scenarios. Results: For missing standard deviations (SDs), following screening of 503 articles, fifteen methods were identified in addition to those reported in a previous review. These included Bayesian hierarchical modelling at the meta-analysis level; summary statistic level imputation based on observed SD values from other trials in the meta-analysis; a practical approximation based on the range; and algebraic estimation of the SD based on other summary statistics. Following screening of 1124 articles for methods estimating the mean, one approximate Bayesian computation approach and three papers based on alternative summary statistics were identified. Illustrative meta-analyses showed that when replacing a missing SD the approximation using the range minimised loss of precision and generally performed better than omitting trials. When estimating missing means, a formula using the median, lower quartile and upper quartile performed best in preserving the precision of the meta-analysis findings, although in some scenarios, omitting trials gave superior results. Conclusions: Methods based on summary statistics (minimum, maximum, lower quartile, upper quartile, median) reported in the literature facilitate more comprehensive inclusion of randomised controlled trials with missing mean or variability summary statistics within meta-analyses

Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense

Prospective registration of systematic reviews promotes transparency, helps reduce potential for bias and serves to avoid unintended duplication of reviews. Registration offers advantages to many stakeholders in return for modest additional effort from the researchers registering their reviews

Reporting of clinical trials: a review of research funders' guidelines

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent the gold standard methodological design to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention in humans but they are subject to bias, including study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. National and international organisations and charities give recommendations for good research practice in relation to RCTs but to date no review of these guidelines has been undertaken with respect to reporting bias. METHODS: National and international organisations and UK based charities listed on the Association for Medical Research Charities website were contacted in 2007; they were considered eligible for this review if they funded RCTs. Guidelines were obtained and assessed in relation to what was written about trial registration, protocol adherence and trial publication. It was also noted whether any monitoring against these guidelines was undertaken. This information was necessary to discover how much guidance researchers are given on the publication of results, in order to prevent study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. RESULTS: Seventeen organisations and 56 charities were eligible of 140 surveyed for this review, although there was no response from 12. Trial registration, protocol adherence, trial publication and monitoring against the guidelines were often explicitly discussed or implicitly referred too. However, only eleven of these organisations or charities mentioned the publication of negative as well as positive outcomes and just three of the organisations specifically stated that the statistical analysis plan should be strictly adhered to and all changes should be reported. CONCLUSION: Our review indicates that there is a need to provide more detailed guidance for those conducting and reporting clinical trials to help prevent the selective reporting of results. Statements found in the guidelines generally refer to publication bias rather than outcome reporting bias. Current guidelines need to be updated and include the statement that all primary and secondary outcomes prespecified in the protocol should be fully reported and should not be selected for inclusion in the final report based on their results

The use of clinical study reports to enhance the quality of systematic reviews: a survey of systematic review authors

Background: Clinical study reports (CSRs) are produced for marketing authorisation applications. They often contain considerably more information about, and data from, clinical trials than corresponding journal publications. Use of data from CSRs might help circumvent reporting bias, but many researchers appear to be unaware of their existence or potential value. Our survey aimed to gain insight into the level of familiarity, understanding and use of CSRs, and to raise awareness of their potential within the systematic review community. We also aimed to explore the potential barriers faced when obtaining and using CSRs in systematic reviews. Methods: Online survey of systematic reviewers who (i) had requested or used CSRs, (ii) had considered but not used CSRs and (iii) had not considered using CSRs was conducted. Cochrane reviewers were contacted twice via the Cochrane monthly digest. Non-Cochrane reviewers were reached via journal and other website postings. Results: One hundred sixty respondents answered an open invitation and completed the questionnaire; 20/ 160 (13%) had previously requested or used CSRs and other regulatory documents, 7/160 (4%) had considered but not used CSRs and 133/160 (83%) had never considered this data source. Survey respondents mainly sought data from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and/or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Motivation for using CSRs stemmed mainly from concerns about reporting bias 11/20 (55%), specifically outcome reporting bias 11/20 (55%) and publication bias 5/20 (25%). The barriers to using CSRs noted by all types of respondents included current limited access to these documents (43 respondents), the time and resources needed to obtain and include these data in evidence syntheses (n = 25) and lack of guidance about how to use these sources in systematic reviews (n = 26). Conclusions: Most respondents (irrespective of whether they had previously used them) agreed that access to CSRs is important, and suggest that further guidance on how to use and include these data would help to promote their use in future systematic reviews. Most respondents who received CSRs considered them to be valuable in their systematic review and/or meta-analysis

CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials

Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the 2010 version of the CONSORT Statement, which updates the previous reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulated experience