State estimation and absolute image registration for geosynchronous satellites

Spacecraft state estimation and the absolute registration of Earth images acquired by cameras onboard geosynchronous satellites are described. The basic data type of the procedure consists of line and element numbers of image points called landmarks whose geodetic coordinates, relative to United States Geodetic Survey topographic maps, are known. A conventional least squares process is used to estimate navigational parameters and camera pointing biases from observed minus computed landmark line and element numbers. These estimated parameters along with orbit and attitude dynamic models are used to register images, using an automated grey level correlation technique, inside the span represented by the landmark data. In addition, the dynamic models can be employed to register images outside of the data span in a near real time mode. An important application of this mode is in support of meteorological studies where rapid data reduction is required for the rapid tracking and predicting of dynamic phenomena

Orbit/attitude estimation for the GOES spacecraft using VAS landmark data

A software system is described which provides for batch least squares estimation of spacecraft orbit, attitude, and camera bias parameters using image data from the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES). The image data are obtained by the Visible and Infrared Spin Scan Radiometer (VISSR) Atmospheric Sounder (VAS). The resulting estimated parameters are used for absolute image registration. Operating in the Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) PDP-11/70 computer, the FORTRAN system also includes the capabilities of image display and manipulations. An overview of the system is presented as well as some numerical results obtained from observations taken by the SMS-2 satellite over a 3 day interval in August 1975

House dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for treating eczema

BACKGROUND: Eczema is an inflammatory skin disease that tends to involve skin creases, such as the folds of the elbows or knees; it is an intensely itchy skin condition, which can relapse and remit over time. As many as a third of people with eczema who have a positive test for allergy to house dust mite have reported worsening of eczema or respiratory symptoms when exposed to dust. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of all house dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for the treatment of eczema. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 14 August 2014: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), and the GREAT database. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant studies. We handsearched abstracts from international eczema and allergy meetings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any of the house dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for the treatment of eczema, which included participants of any age diagnosed by a clinician with eczema as defined by the World Allergy Organization. We included all non‐pharmacological and pharmacological interventions that sought to reduce or avoid exposure to house dust mite and their allergenic faeces. The comparators were any active treatment, no treatment, placebo, or standard care only. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently checked the titles and abstracts identified, and there were no disagreements. We contacted authors of included studies for additional information. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies of 324 adults and children with eczema. Overall, the included studies had a high risk of bias. Four of the seven trials tested interventions with multiple components, and three tested a single intervention. Two of the seven trials included only children, four included children and adults, and one included only adults. Interventions to reduce or avoid exposure to house dust mite included covers for mattresses and bedding, increased or high‐quality vacuuming of carpets and mattresses, and sprays that kill house dust mites. Four studies assessed our first primary outcome of 'Clinician‐assessed eczema severity using a named scale'. Of these, one study (n = 20) did not show any significant short‐term benefit from allergen impermeable polyurethane mattress encasings and acaricide spray versus allergen permeable cotton mattress encasings and placebo acaricide spray. One study (n = 60) found a modest statistically significant benefit in the Six Area, Six Sign Atopic Dermatitis (SASSAD) scale over six months (mean difference of 4.2 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 6.7), P = 0.008) in favour of a mite impermeable bedding system combined with benzyltannate spray and high‐filtration vacuuming versus mite permeable cotton encasings, water with a trace of alcohol spray, and a low‐filtration vacuum cleaner. The third study (n = 41) did not compare the change in severity of eczema between the two treatment groups. The fourth study (n = 86) reported no evidence of a difference between the treatment groups. With regard to the secondary outcomes 'Participant‐ or caregiver‐assessed global eczema severity score' and the 'Amount and frequency of topical treatment required', one study (n = 20) assessed these outcomes with similar results being reported for these outcomes in both groups. Four studies (n = 159) assessed 'Sensitivity to house dust mite allergen using a marker'; there was no clear evidence of a difference in sensitivity levels reported between treatments in any of the four trials. None of the seven included studies assessed our second primary outcome 'Participant‐ or caregiver‐assessed eczema‐related quality of life using a named instrument' or the secondary outcome of 'Adverse effects'. We were unable to combine any of our results because of variability in the interventions and paucity of data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to determine clear implications to inform clinical practice from the very low‐quality evidence currently available. The modest treatment responses reported were in people with atopic eczema, specifically with sensitivity to one or more aeroallergens. Thus, their use in the eczema population as a whole is unknown. High‐quality long‐term trials of single, easy‐to‐administer house dust mite reduction or avoidance measures are worth pursuing

Specific allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of atopic eczema.

BACKGROUND: Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is a treatment that may improve disease severity in people with atopic eczema (AE) by inducing immune tolerance to the relevant allergen. A high quality systematic review has not previously assessed the efficacy and safety of this treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT), including subcutaneous, sublingual, intradermal, and oral routes, compared with placebo or a standard treatment in people with atopic eczema. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), Web of Science™ (from 2005), the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT database), and five trials databases. We searched abstracts from recent European and North American allergy meetings and checked the references of included studies and review articles for further references to relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of specific allergen immunotherapy that used standardised allergen extracts in people with AE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction (including adverse effects), assessment of risk of bias, and analyses. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 RCTs for inclusion in this review; the total number of participants was 733. The interventions included SIT in children and adults allergic to either house dust mite (10 trials), grass pollen, or other inhalant allergens (two trials). They were administered subcutaneously (six trials), sublingually (four trials), orally, or intradermally (two trials). Overall, the risk of bias was moderate, with high loss to follow up and lack of blinding as the main methodological concern.Our primary outcomes were 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment'; 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'; and 'Adverse events, such as acute episodes of asthma or anaphylaxis'. SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) is a means of measuring the effect of atopic dermatitis by area (A); intensity (B); and subjective measures (C), such as itch and sleeplessness, which we used.For 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment', one trial (20 participants) found improvement in 7/9 participants (78%) treated with the SIT compared with 3/11 (27%) treated with the placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 7.96; P = 0.04). Another study (24 participants) found no difference: global disease severity improved in 8/13 participants (62%) treated with the SIT compared with 9/11 (81%) treated with the placebo (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.26; P = 0.38). We did not perform meta-analysis because of high heterogeneity between these two studies. The quality of the evidence was low.For 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures', two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved SCORAD part C (mean difference (MD) -0.74, 95% CI -1.98 to 0.50) or sleep disturbance (MD -0.49, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.06) more than placebo. For SCORAD part C itch severity, these two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved itch (MD -0.24, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.52). One other non-blinded study (60 participants) found that the SIT reduced itch compared with no treatment (MD -4.20, 95% CI -3.69 to -4.71) and reduced the participants' overall symptoms (P < 0.01), but we could not pool these three studies due to high heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was very low.Seven trials reported systemic adverse reactions: 18/282 participants (6.4%) treated with the SIT had a systemic reaction compared with 15/210 (7.1%) with no treatment (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.49; the quality of the evidence was moderate). The same seven trials reported local adverse reactions: 90/280 participants (32.1%) treated with the SIT had a local reaction compared with 44/204 (21.6%) in the no treatment group (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.81). As these had the same study limitations, we deemed the quality of the evidence to also be moderate.Of our secondary outcomes, there was a significant improvement in 'Investigator- or physician-rated global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment' (six trials, 262 participants; RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.88). None of the studies reported our secondary outcome 'Parent- or participant-rated eczema severity assessed using a published scale', but two studies (n = 184), which have been mentioned above, used SCORAD part C, which we included as our primary outcome 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'.Our findings were generally inconclusive because of the small number of studies. We were unable to determine by subgroup analyses a particular type of allergen or a particular age or level of disease severity where allergen immunotherapy was more successful. We were also unable to determine whether sublingual immunotherapy was associated with more local adverse reactions compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the quality of the evidence was low. The low quality was mainly due to the differing results between studies, lack of blinding in some studies, and relatively few studies reporting participant-centred outcome measures. We found limited evidence that SIT may be an effective treatment for people with AE. The treatments used in these trials were not associated with an increased risk of local or systemic reactions. Future studies should use high quality allergen formulations with a proven track record in other allergic conditions and should include participant-reported outcome measures

Maternal Preeclampsia and Neonatal Outcomes

Preeclampsia is a multiorgan, heterogeneous disorder of pregnancy associated with significant maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Optimal strategies in the care of the women with preeclampsia have not been fully elucidated, leaving physicians with incomplete data to guide their clinical decision making. Because preeclampsia is a progressive disorder, in some circumstances, delivery is needed to halt the progression to the benefit of the mother and fetus. However, the need for premature delivery has adverse effects on important neonatal outcomes not limited to the most premature infants. Late-preterm infants account for approximately two thirds of all preterm deliveries and are at significant risk for morbidity and mortality. Reviewed is the current literature in the diagnosis and obstetrical management of preeclampsia, the outcomes of late-preterm infants, and potential strategies to optimize fetal outcomes in pregnancies complicated by preeclampsia

Systemic therapy for vulval Erosive Lichen Planus (the 'hELP' trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Erosive lichen planus affecting the vulva (ELPV) is a relatively rare, chronic condition causing painful raw areas in the vulvovaginal region. Symptoms are pain and burning, which impact upon daily living. There is paucity of evidence regarding therapy. A 2012 Cochrane systematic review found no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this field. Topically administered corticosteroids are the accepted first-line therapy: however, there is uncertainty as to which second-line treatments to use. Several systemic agents have been clinically noted to show promise for ELPV refractory to topically administered corticosteroids but there is no RCT evidence to support these. The 'hELP' study is a RCT with an internal pilot phase designed to provide high-quality evidence. METHODS/DESIGN: The objective is to test whether systemic therapy in addition to standard topical therapy is a beneficial second-line treatment for ELPV. Adjunctive systemic therapies used are hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil and prednisolone. Topical therapy plus a short course of prednisolone given orally is considered the comparator intervention. The trial is a four-armed, open-label, pragmatic RCT which uses a blinded independent clinical assessor. To provide 80 % power for each comparison, 96 participants are required in total. The pilot phase aims to recruit 40 participants. The primary clinical outcome is the proportion of patients achieving treatment success at 6 months. 'Success' is defined by a composite measure of Patient Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 on a 4-point scale plus improvement from baseline on clinical photographs scored by a clinician blinded to treatment allocation. Secondary clinical outcomes include 6-month assessment of: (1) Reduction in pain/soreness; (2) Global assessment of disease; (3) Response at other affected mucosal sites; (4) Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores; (5) Sexual function; (6) Health-related quality of life using 'Short Form 36' and 'Skindex-29' questionnaires; (7) Days of topical steroid use; (8) Treatment satisfaction; (9) Discontinuation of medications due to treatment failure; (10) Per participant cost of intervention in each treatment group. Adverse events will also be reported. DISCUSSION: 'hELP' is the first RCT to address second-line treatment of ELPV. The trial has encountered unique methodological challenges and has required collaborative efforts of the UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network alongside expert clinicians. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CURRENT CONTROLLED TRIALS: ISRCTN 81883379 . Date of registration 12 June 2014

Economic evidence for the prevention and treatment of atopic eczema: a protocol for a systematic review

Background: Eczema, synonymous with atopic eczema or atopic dermatitis, is a chronic skin disease that has a similar impact on health-related quality of life as other chronic diseases. The proposed research aims to provide a comprehensive systematic assessment of the economic evidence base available to inform economic modelling and decision making on interventions to prevent and treat eczema at any stage of the life course. Whilst the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT) database collects together the effectiveness evidence for eczema there is currently no such systematic resource on the economics of eczema. It is important to gain an overview of the current state of the art of economic methods in the field of eczema in order to strengthen the economic evidence base further. Methods/design: The proposed study is a systematic review of the economic evidence surrounding interventions for the prevention and treatment of eczema. Relevant search terms will be used to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Econ Lit, Scopus, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and Web of Science in order to identify relevant evidence. To be eligible for inclusion studies will be primary empirical studies evaluating the cost, utility or full economic evaluation of interventions for preventing or treating eczema. Two reviewers will independently assess studies for eligibility and perform data abstraction. Evidence tables will be produced presenting details of study characteristics, costing methods, outcome methods and quality assessment. The methodological quality of studies will be assessed using accepted checklists. Discussion: The systematic review is being undertaken to identify the type of economic evidence available, summarise the results of the available economic evidence and critically appraise the quality of economic evidence currently available to inform future economic modelling and resource allocation decisions about interventions to prevent or treat eczema. We aim to use the review to offer guidance about how to gather economic evidence in studies of eczema and/or what further research is necessary in order to inform this

Mapping randomized controlled trials of treatments for eczema - The GREAT database (The Global Resource of Eczema Trials: a collection of key data on randomized controlled trials of treatments for eczema from 2000 to 2010)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Massive duplication of effort occurs when researchers all over the world undertake extensive searches for randomized controlled trials when preparing systematic reviews, when developing evidence-based guidelines and when applying for research funding for eczema treatments. Such duplication wastes valuable resources.</p> <p>Searching for randomized controlled trials of eczema is a laborious task involving scrutiny of thousands of individual references from diverse electronic databases in order to obtain a few papers of interest. Clinicians and patients who wish to find out more about a particular treatment are at risk of missing the relevant evidence if they are not trained in electronic bibliographic searching. Systematic reviews cannot be relied upon to comprehensively inform current optimal eczema treatments due to incomplete coverage and because many may be out of date.</p> <p>An international, publically available and comprehensive resource which brings together all randomized controlled trials on eczema treatment using a highly sensitive search has the potential to release more filtered knowledge about patient care to those who need it most and to significantly shorten the duration and costs of many clinical eczema research and guideline projects.</p> <p>Description</p> <p>The Global Resource of EczemA Trials brings together information on all randomized controlled trials of eczema treatments published from the beginning of 2000 up to the end of 2010 and will be updated every month.</p> <p>We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in <it>The Cochrane Library </it>and the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, AMED and CINHAL databases. We included 268 RCTs (24^thMarch 2011) covering over 70 different treatment interventions.</p> <p>The structure of the Global Resource of Eczema Trials allows the user as much, or as little, specificity when retrieving information on trials as they wish, in an easy to use format. For each trial, the database gives the citation for the published report and also provides enough information to enable a user to decide whether the trial is worth further scrutiny.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The Global Resource of Eczema Trials has been created to facilitate knowledge mobilization into healthcare and to reduce wastage of research time through unnecessary duplication. The collective time saved by research groups around the world can now be used to make strides in optimising the treatment of eczema, in order to further benefit people with eczema. The database can be accessed free of charge at <url>http://www.greatdatabase.org.uk</url></p

Report from the third international consensus meeting to harmonise core outcome measures for atopic eczema/dermatitis clinical trials (HOME).

This report provides a summary of the third meeting of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative held in San Diego, CA, U.S.A., 6-7 April 2013 (HOME III). The meeting addressed the four domains that had previously been agreed should be measured in every eczema clinical trial: clinical signs, patient-reported symptoms, long-term control and quality of life. Formal presentations and nominal group techniques were used at this working meeting, attended by 56 voting participants (31 of whom were dermatologists). Significant progress was made on the domain of clinical signs. Without reference to any named scales, it was agreed that the intensity and extent of erythema, excoriation, oedema/papulation and lichenification should be included in the core outcome measure for the scale to have content validity. The group then discussed a systematic review of all scales measuring the clinical signs of eczema and their measurement properties, followed by a consensus vote on which scale to recommend for inclusion in the core outcome set. Research into the remaining three domains was presented, followed by discussions. The symptoms group and quality of life groups need to systematically identify all available tools and rate the quality of the tools. A definition of long-term control is needed before progress can be made towards recommending a core outcome measure

Specific allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of atopic eczema: a Cochrane systematic review

Background Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is an effective allergy treatment, but it is unclear whether SIT is effective for atopic eczema (AE). We undertook a systematic review to assess SIT efficacy and safety for treating AE. Methods We searched databases, ongoing clinical trials registers, and conference proceedings up to July 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SIT using standardized allergen extracts, compared with placebo/control, for treating AE in patients with allergic sensitization were eligible. Results We identified 12 eligible trials with 733 participants. Interventions included subcutaneous (six trials), sublingual (four trials), oral or intradermal SIT in children/adults allergic to house dust mite (10 trials), grass pollen or other inhalants. Risk of bias was moderate, with high loss to follow‐up and nonblinding as the main concerns. For our primary outcomes, three studies (208 participants) reported no significant difference – patient‐reported global disease severity improvement RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.45, 1.26); and eczema symptoms mean difference −0.74 on a 20‐point scale (95% CI −1.98, 0.50). Two studies (85 participants) reported a significant difference – SIT improved global disease severity RR 2.85 (95% CI 1.02, 7.96); and itch mean difference −4.20 on a 10‐point scale (95% CI −3.69, −4.71). Meta‐analysis was limited due to extreme statistical heterogeneity. For some secondary outcomes, meta‐analyses showed benefits for SIT, for example investigator‐rated improvement in eczema severity RR 1.48 (95% CI 1.16, 1.88; six trials, 262 participants). We found no evidence of adverse effects. The overall quality of evidence was low. Conclusion We found no consistent evidence that SIT is effective for treating AE, but due to the low quality of evidence further research is needed to establish whether SIT has a role in AE treatment