Does self-monitoring reduce blood pressure? Meta-analysis with meta-regression of randomized controlled trials

Introduction. Self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) is an increasingly common part of hypertension management. The objectives of this systematic review were to evaluate the systolic and diastolic BP reduction, and achievement of target BP, associated with self-monitoring. Methods. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, database of abstracts of clinical effectiveness, the health technology assessment database, the NHS economic evaluation database, and the TRIP database were searched for studies where the intervention included self-monitoring of BP and the outcome was change in office/ambulatory BP or proportion with controlled BP. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Meta-analysis using a random effects model was combined with meta-regression to investigate heterogeneity in effect sizes. Results. A total of 25 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (27 comparisons) were identified. Office systolic BP (20 RCTs, 21 comparisons, 5,898 patients) and diastolic BP (23 RCTs, 25 comparisons, 6,038 patients) were significantly reduced in those who self-monitored compared to usual care (weighted mean difference (WMD) systolic −3.82 mmHg (95% confidence interval −5.61 to −2.03), diastolic −1.45 mmHg (−1.95 to −0.94)). Self-monitoring increased the chance of meeting office BP targets (12 RCTs, 13 comparisons, 2,260 patients, relative risk = 1.09 (1.02 to 1.16)). There was significant heterogeneity between studies for all three comparisons, which could be partially accounted for by the use of additional co-interventions. Conclusion. Self-monitoring reduces blood pressure by a small but significant amount. Meta-regression could only account for part of the observed heterogeneity

Massive Black Hole Binary Inspirals: Results from the LISA Parameter Estimation Taskforce

The LISA Parameter Estimation (LISAPE) Taskforce was formed in September 2007 to provide the LISA Project with vetted codes, source distribution models, and results related to parameter estimation. The Taskforce's goal is to be able to quickly calculate the impact of any mission design changes on LISA's science capabilities, based on reasonable estimates of the distribution of astrophysical sources in the universe. This paper describes our Taskforce's work on massive black-hole binaries (MBHBs). Given present uncertainties in the formation history of MBHBs, we adopt four different population models, based on (i) whether the initial black-hole seeds are small or large, and (ii) whether accretion is efficient or inefficient at spinning up the holes. We compare four largely independent codes for calculating LISA's parameter-estimation capabilities. All codes are based on the Fisher-matrix approximation, but in the past they used somewhat different signal models, source parametrizations and noise curves. We show that once these differences are removed, the four codes give results in extremely close agreement with each other. Using a code that includes both spin precession and higher harmonics in the gravitational-wave signal, we carry out Monte Carlo simulations and determine the number of events that can be detected and accurately localized in our four population models.Comment: 14 pages, 2 figures, 5 tables, minor changes to match version to be published in the proceedings of the 7th LISA Symposium. For more information see the Taskforce's wiki at http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/dokuwiki/lisape:hom

Standing together for reproducibility in large-scale computing: report on reproducibility@XSEDE

This is the final report on reproducibility@xsede, a one-day workshop held in conjunction with XSEDE14, the annual conference of the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE). The workshop's discussion-oriented agenda focused on reproducibility in large-scale computational research. Two important themes capture the spirit of the workshop submissions and discussions: (1) organizational stakeholders, especially supercomputer centers, are in a unique position to promote, enable, and support reproducible research; and (2) individual researchers should conduct each experiment as though someone will replicate that experiment. Participants documented numerous issues, questions, technologies, practices, and potentially promising initiatives emerging from the discussion, but also highlighted four areas of particular interest to XSEDE: (1) documentation and training that promotes reproducible research; (2) system-level tools that provide build- and run-time information at the level of the individual job; (3) the need to model best practices in research collaborations involving XSEDE staff; and (4) continued work on gateways and related technologies. In addition, an intriguing question emerged from the day's interactions: would there be value in establishing an annual award for excellence in reproducible research? Overvie

N348I in the Connection Domain of HIV-1 Reverse Transcriptase Confers Zidovudine and Nevirapine Resistance

Analyzing HIV sequences from a Canadian cohort, Gilda Tachedjian and colleagues identify a common mutation in a little-studied domain of reverse transcriptase that confers resistance to two drug classes

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research