The FLUXNET2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline for eddy covariance data

The FLUXNET2015 dataset provides ecosystem-scale data on CO2, water, and energy exchange between the biosphere and the atmosphere, and other meteorological and biological measurements, from 212 sites around the globe (over 1500 site-years, up to and including year 2014). These sites, independently managed and operated, voluntarily contributed their data to create global datasets. Data were quality controlled and processed using uniform methods, to improve consistency and intercomparability across sites. The dataset is already being used in a number of applications, including ecophysiology studies, remote sensing studies, and development of ecosystem and Earth system models. FLUXNET2015 includes derived-data products, such as gap-filled time series, ecosystem respiration and photosynthetic uptake estimates, estimation of uncertainties, and metadata about the measurements, presented for the first time in this paper. In addition, 206 of these sites are for the first time distributed under a Creative Commons (CC-BY 4.0) license. This paper details this enhanced dataset and the processing methods, now made available as open-source codes, making the dataset more accessible, transparent, and reproducible.Peer reviewe

Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science

It is well documented that the majority of adults, children and families in need of evidence-based behavioral health interventionsi do not receive them [1, 2] and that few robust empirically supported methods for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) exist. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) represents a burgeoning effort to advance the innovation and rigor of implementation research and is uniquely focused on bringing together researchers and stakeholders committed to evaluating the implementation of complex evidence-based behavioral health interventions. Through its diverse activities and membership, SIRC aims to foster the promise of implementation research to better serve the behavioral health needs of the population by identifying rigorous, relevant, and efficient strategies that successfully transfer scientific evidence to clinical knowledge for use in real world settings [3]. SIRC began as a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded conference series in 2010 (previously titled the “Seattle Implementation Research Conference”; $150,000 USD for 3 conferences in 2011, 2013, and 2015) with the recognition that there were multiple researchers and stakeholdersi working in parallel on innovative implementation science projects in behavioral health, but that formal channels for communicating and collaborating with one another were relatively unavailable. There was a significant need for a forum within which implementation researchers and stakeholders could learn from one another, refine approaches to science and practice, and develop an implementation research agenda using common measures, methods, and research principles to improve both the frequency and quality with which behavioral health treatment implementation is evaluated. SIRC’s membership growth is a testament to this identified need with more than 1000 members from 2011 to the present.ii SIRC’s primary objectives are to: (1) foster communication and collaboration across diverse groups, including implementation researchers, intermediariesi, as well as community stakeholders (SIRC uses the term “EBP champions” for these groups) – and to do so across multiple career levels (e.g., students, early career faculty, established investigators); and (2) enhance and disseminate rigorous measures and methodologies for implementing EBPs and evaluating EBP implementation efforts. These objectives are well aligned with Glasgow and colleagues’ [4] five core tenets deemed critical for advancing implementation science: collaboration, efficiency and speed, rigor and relevance, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge. SIRC advances these objectives and tenets through in-person conferences, which bring together multidisciplinary implementation researchers and those implementing evidence-based behavioral health interventions in the community to share their work and create professional connections and collaborations

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Does parenteral nutrition increase the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection? A systematic literature review

Background: Central venous access devices (CVADs) are used for parenteral nutrition (PN) delivery. We systematically reviewed research-based publications that reported comparative rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) in patients with CVADs who received PN vs those who did not receive PN therapy. Materials and Methods: The literature search included the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PubMed up to July 14, 2015, to identity studies that compared patients with a CVAD who did and did not have PN therapy. Results: Eleven observational studies were identified, comprising 2854 participants with 6287 CVADs. Six studies produced significant results in favor of non-PN, 4 studies showed no evidence of a difference between PN and non-PN, and 1 study produced significant results in favor of PN when analyzed per patient with multiple CVADs. Incidence ranged from 0 to 6.6 CRBSIs per 1000 CVAD days in the PN patients and 0.39 to 3.6 CRBSIs per 1000 CVAD days in the non-PN patients. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool for nonrandomized studies of interventions was used. Eight studies were rated as moderate risk of bias, 2 as serious, and 1 as critical. Conclusion: The data presented in this systematic review are not sufficient to establish whether patients receiving PN are more at risk of developing CRBSI than those who do not. Future PN studies needs to adjust for baseline imbalances and improve quality and reporting

Does Parenteral Nutrition Increase the Risk of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection? A Systematic Literature Review

Background: Central venous access devices (CVADs) are used for parenteral nutrition (PN) delivery. We systematically reviewed research-based publications that reported comparative rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) in patients with CVADs who received PN vs those who did not receive PN therapy. Materials and Methods: The literature search included the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PubMed up to July 14, 2015, to identity studies that compared patients with a CVAD who did and did not have PN therapy. Results: Eleven observational studies were identified, comprising 2854 participants with 6287 CVADs. Six studies produced significant results in favor of non-PN, 4 studies showed no evidence of a difference between PN and non-PN, and 1 study produced significant results in favor of PN when analyzed per patient with multiple CVADs. Incidence ranged from 0 to 6.6 CRBSIs per 1000 CVAD days in the PN patients and 0.39 to 3.6 CRBSIs per 1000 CVAD days in the non-PN patients. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool for nonrandomized studies of interventions was used. Eight studies were rated as moderate risk of bias, 2 as serious, and 1 as critical. Conclusion: The data presented in this systematic review are not sufficient to establish whether patients receiving PN are more at risk of developing CRBSI than those who do not. Future PN studies needs to adjust for baseline imbalances and improve quality and reporting