Efficacy of new-generation antidepressants assessed with the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale, the gold standard clinician rating scale : a meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials

It has been claimed that efficacy estimates based on the Hamilton Depression Rating-Scale (HDRS) underestimate antidepressants true treatment effects due to the instrument's poor psychometric properties. The aim of this study is to compare efficacy estimates based on the HDRS with the gold standard procedure, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating-Scale (MADRS)

Prevalence of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Stem Cells Correlates with Recurrence in Early-Stage Ovarian Cancer

Epithelial ovarian cancer stem cells (EOC stem cells) have been associated with recurrence and chemoresistance. CD44 and CK18 are highly expressed in cancer stem cells and function as tools for their identification and characterization. We investigated the association between the number of CD44+ EOC stem cells in ovarian cancer tumors and progression-free survival. EOC stem cells exist as clusters located close to the stroma forming the cancer stem cell “niche”. 17.1% of the samples reveled high number of CD44+ EOC stem cells (>20% positive cells). In addition, the number of CD44+ EOC stem cells was significantly higher in patients with early-stage ovarian cancer (FIGO I/II), and it was associated with shorter progression-free survival (P = 0.026). This study suggests that quantification of the number of EOC stem cells in the tumor can be used as a predictor of disease and could be applied for treatment selection in early-stage ovarian cancer

Level of sedation in critically ill adult patients : a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Publisher Copyright: © 2022 BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved.Introduction It is standard of care to provide sedation to critically ill patients to reduce anxiety, discomfort and promote tolerance of mechanical ventilation. Given that sedatives can have differing effects based on a variety of patient and pharmacological characteristics, treatment approaches are largely based on targeting the level of sedation. The benefits of differing levels of sedation must be balanced against potential adverse effects including haemodynamic instability, causing delirium, delaying awakening and prolonging the time of mechanical ventilation and intensive care stay. This systematic review with meta-analysis aims to investigate the current evidence and compare the effects of differing sedation levels in adult critically ill patients. Methods and analyses We will conduct a systematic review based on searches of preidentified major medical databases (eg, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify trials meeting inclusion criteria. We will include randomised clinical trials comparing any degree of sedation with no sedation and lighter sedation with deeper sedation for critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit. We will include aggregate data meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses. Risk of bias will be assessed with domains based on the Cochrane risk of bias tool. An eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed using Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Ethics and dissemination No formal approval or review of ethics is required as individual patient data will not be included. This systematic review has the potential to highlight (1) whether one should believe sedation to be beneficial, harmful or neither in critically ill adults; (2) the existing knowledge gaps and (3) whether the recommendations from guidelines and daily clinical practice are supported by current evidence. These results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Peer reviewe

Protocol for an individual patient data meta-analysis on blood pressure targets after cardiac arrest

Background Hypotension is common after cardiac arrest (CA), and current guidelines recommend using vasopressors to target mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) higher than 65 mmHg. Pilot trials have compared higher and lower MAP targets. We will review the evidence on whether higher MAP improves outcome after cardiac arrest. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted based on a systematic search of relevant major medical databases from their inception onwards, including MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), as well as clinical trial registries. We will identify randomised controlled trials published in the English language that compare targeting a MAP higher than 65-70 mmHg in CA patients using vasopressors, inotropes and intravenous fluids. The data extraction will be performed separately by two authors (a third author will be involved in case of disagreement), followed by a bias assessment with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool using an eight-step procedure for assessing if thresholds for clinical significance are crossed. The outcomes will be all-cause mortality, functional long-term outcomes and serious adverse events. We will contact the authors of the identified trials to request individual anonymised patient data to enable individual patient data meta-analysis, aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses and multivariable regression, controlling for baseline characteristics. The certainty of the evidence will be assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. We will register this systematic review with Prospero and aim to redo it when larger trials are published in the near future. Conclusions This protocol defines the performance of a systematic review on whether a higher MAP after cardiac arrest improves patient outcome. Repeating this systematic review including more data likely will allow for more certainty regarding the effect of the intervention and possible sub-groups differences.Peer reviewe

Pseudorapidity distributions of charged particles from Au+Au collisions at the maximum RHIC energy, Sqrt(s_NN) = 200 GeV

We present charged particle densities as a function of pseudorapidity and collision centrality for the 197Au+197Au reaction at Sqrt{s_NN}=200 GeV. For the 5% most central events we obtain dN_ch/deta(eta=0) = 625 +/- 55 and N_ch(-4.7<= eta <= 4.7) = 4630+-370, i.e. 14% and 21% increases, respectively, relative to Sqrt{s_NN}=130 GeV collisions. Charged-particle production per pair of participant nucleons is found to increase from peripheral to central collisions around mid-rapidity. These results constrain current models of particle production at the highest RHIC energy.Comment: 4 pages, 5 figures; fixed fig. 5 caption; revised text and figures to show corrected calculation of and ; final version accepted for publicatio

Measurement of the cross-section and charge asymmetry of WW bosons produced in proton-proton collisions at s=8\sqrt{s}=8 TeV with the ATLAS detector

This paper presents measurements of the $W^+ \rightarrow \mu^+\nu$ and $W^- \rightarrow \mu^-\nu$ cross-sections and the associated charge asymmetry as a function of the absolute pseudorapidity of the decay muon. The data were collected in proton--proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 8 TeV with the ATLAS experiment at the LHC and correspond to a total integrated luminosity of 20.2~\mbox{fb^{-1}}. The precision of the cross-section measurements varies between 0.8% to 1.5% as a function of the pseudorapidity, excluding the 1.9% uncertainty on the integrated luminosity. The charge asymmetry is measured with an uncertainty between 0.002 and 0.003. The results are compared with predictions based on next-to-next-to-leading-order calculations with various parton distribution functions and have the sensitivity to discriminate between them.Comment: 38 pages in total, author list starting page 22, 5 figures, 4 tables, submitted to EPJC. All figures including auxiliary figures are available at https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/STDM-2017-13