Scaling methodology and scale reporting in the TREE2 panel survey. Documentation of scales implemented in the baseline survey (2016). Update 2023

This documentation refers to the database of the 2nd TREE cohort’s (TREE2) as published in the 2023 data release (TREE, 2023). It outlines the statistical models and estimation methods employed for scale construction and the calculation of student scores based on questionnaire items. Furthermore, we discuss the various metrics and indicators of relevant scale propertiescompiled in the technical appendix for all scales implemented in the TREE2 baseline survey. The focus of the scale reporting is on the internal consistency of the scales and on the comparability of the measurements across survey languages, survey modes and survey settings involved. With very few exceptions, the results indicate at least sufficient or high internal consistency and measurement invariance of the scales used. A complementary documentation covering the scales employed in later panel waves can be found in the 2023 TREE2 data release (Sacchi & Krebs-Oesch, 2023). With the exception of a few additional metrics of longitudinal measurement invariance over panels waves (ibid., sections 3.6, 4.2), it basically relies on the methods presented in this report

Documentation of scales implemented from panel wave 1 onwards

This paper documents the questionnaire-based scales and item composites administered in the first two waves of the second TREE cohort (TREE2) in 2017 and 2018. At the centre of this working paper is a technical appendix, which provides, for each scale, a detailed tabular report of selected statistics and quality measures. The focus is on the scales’ reliability, dimensionality and measurement invariance. The scaling and calculation of factor scores rely essentially on the same factor-analytical models and methods as in the TREE2 baseline survey. These are described in detail in sec-tion 3 of the respective documentation of the scales used in that survey (see Sacchi & Krebs-Oesch, 2021). The documentation also describes the selection, calculation and interpretation of the figures and quality measures reported in the tabular appendix (ibid., section 4). Against this backdrop, the explanatory notes in the introduction of the present documenta-tion are restricted to a description of the database for both waves and of some modifications in the applied methods. In addition, we also describe a series of newly introduced statistics of longitudinal measurement invariance for scales with repeated measures

Effect of Prehabilitation in Form of Exercise and/or Education in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty on Postoperative Outcomes-A Systematic Review.

Background and Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether prehabilitation before total hip arthroplasty, in the form of exercise therapy, education alone, or both together, improves postoperative outcomes, such as physical functioning, compared with no intervention. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in the online databases PubMed, PEDro and Cochrane Library using the following search keywords: "prehabilitation", "preoperative care", and "total hip replacement". Results: A total of 400 potentially relevant studies were identified. After title, abstract and full-text screening, 14 studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. Patients who completed exercise-based prehabilitation before their operation showed significant postoperative improvements compared with no intervention in the following tests: six-minute walk test, Timed Up and Go test, chair-rise test, and stair climbing. For various other assessments, such as the widely used Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) and Barthel Index, no significant differences in outcomes regarding exercise therapy were reported in the included studies. Education alone had no effect on postoperative outcomes. Conclusions: Prehabilitation in the form of a prehabilitation exercise therapy is an effective prehabilitation measure with regard to postoperative physical functioning, while prehabilitation in the form of education has no significant effects. No negative effects of prehabilitation on the outcomes examined were reported

Scaling methodology and scale reporting in the TREE2 panel survey. Documentation of scales implemented in the baseline survey (2016)

This paper documents the questionnaire-based scales and item-based composites that have been collected on the occasion of the baseline survey administered to the second TREE cohort (TREE2) in 2016. First, the paper focuses on the methods and the estimation procedures that we have adopted for the calculation of the student scores published in the scientific use data files. Second, we describe the calculation of scale-specific statistics and quality measures (reported in the technical appendix) and provide some clues for their interpretation

Umwelteinflüsse auf Werkstoffe

The corrosion behavior of different metals commonly used in civil engineering and construction was investigated under outdoor exposure conditions. The exposure sites were chosen at locations of the Swiss National Air Pollution Monitoring Network (NABEL) in different regions of Switzerland, where the concentrations of different air pollutants and climate data are registered continuously. After different exposure times, a set of test specimens is taken back for gravimetric evaluation of material loss and chemical characterization of corrosion products and deposits. Transmission and scanning electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction (XRD), and X-ray fluorescence (XRF) were used to characterize corrosion products. Water soluble compounds on the metal surfaces have also been analyzed quantitatively. First results for the exposure period of six months are presented. They show large differences in corrosion rate and in the amount of corrosive species on the metal surfaces for the different test sites. In some cases a very good correlation to the specific pollution and climate conditions at the particular locations is possible

Bacteriostatic versus bactericidal antibiotics for patients with serious bacterial infections: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives Antibiotics are commonly classified into bactericidal and bacteriostatic agents based on their antimicrobial action. We aimed to assess whether this distinction is clinically relevant. Methods OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and relevant references and conference proceedings using the Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing bactericidal with bacteriostatic antibiotics for treatment of severe infections. Main outcome measures were clinical cure rates and overall mortality. Abstracts of studies selected in the database search were screened by one reviewer; full-text screening and data extraction were performed by three independent reviewers. Results Thirty-three studies were included. Approximately half of patients were treated with bacteriostatic monotherapy. Infections covered were pneumonia (n = 13), skin and soft tissue infections (n = 8), intra-abdominal infections (n = 4) and others (n = 8). Neither clinical cure rates [risk ratio (RR), 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.01; P = 0.11] nor mortality rates (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76-1.08; P = 0.28) were different between patients treated with bactericidal drugs and those treated with bacteriostatic drugs. Subgroup analyses showed a benefit for clinical cure rates associated with linezolid and increased mortality associated with tigecycline. In meta-regression, clinical cure rates remained higher in patients treated with linezolid (P = 0.01); tigecycline displayed a close to significant association with increased mortality (P = 0.05) if compared with other bacteriostatic agents. Conclusions The categorization of antibiotics into bacteriostatic and bactericidal is unlikely to be relevant in clinical practice if used for abdominal infections, skin and soft tissue infections and pneumonia. Because we were not able to include studies on meningitis, endocarditis or neutropenia, no conclusion regarding these diseases can be draw

Association of potentially inappropriate medications with outcomes of inpatient geriatric rehabilitation : A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND Higher age is associated with multimorbidity, which may lead to polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication (PIM). OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether PIM on admission for geriatric inpatient rehabilitation is associated with rehabilitation outcome regarding mobility and quality of life. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 210 patients were included. Medications at hospital admission were analyzed with the Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) and the number of PIMs individual patients were taking was determined. The study population was then divided into two groups, one with and one without PIM. The main rehabilitation outcomes, quality of life and mobility, were assessed on admission and discharge. Associations between PIM and the main outcomes were analyzed using the two-tailed Student's t-test and Spearman correlations. RESULTS In total 131 PIMs were identified by STOPP. Of the patients 91 (43%) were taking at least 1 PIM, and 119 patients (57%) were not taking any PIM. Patients with no PIM had a significantly better quality of life on admission (p < 0.05) and discharge (p < 0.005). The number of PIMs was not associated with the rehabilitation outcomes mobility and quality of life (Spearman's ρ = -0.01, p = 0.89 and ρ = -0.02, p = 0.7, respectively). The quality of life and mobility increased identically in both groups from admission to discharge but the group with PIM did not reach the levels of those without PIM. CONCLUSION The use of PIM may have a negative impact on the quality of life of elderly people but patients with and without PIM achieved comparable improvements in quality of life and mobility. Further studies are required to assess the long-term outcomes of patients taking PIM following inpatient rehabilitation

Taking the Sector Seriously: Data, Developments, and Drivers of Intrasectoral Earnings Inequality

The politics and administration of institutional chang

Adverse outcome pathways:opportunities, limitations and open questions

Adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) are a recent toxicological construct that connects, in a formalized, transparent and quality-controlled way, mechanistic information to apical endpoints for regulatory purposes. AOP links a molecular initiating event (MIE) to the adverse outcome (AO) via key events (KE), in a way specified by key event relationships (KER). Although this approach to formalize mechanistic toxicological information only started in 2010, over 200 AOPs have already been established. At this stage, new requirements arise, such as the need for harmonization and re-assessment, for continuous updating, as well as for alerting about pitfalls, misuses and limits of applicability. In this review, the history of the AOP concept and its most prominent strengths are discussed, including the advantages of a formalized approach, the systematic collection of weight of evidence, the linkage of mechanisms to apical end points, the examination of the plausibility of epidemiological data, the identification of critical knowledge gaps and the design of mechanistic test methods. To prepare the ground for a broadened and appropriate use of AOPs, some widespread misconceptions are explained. Moreover, potential weaknesses and shortcomings of the current AOP rule set are addressed (1) to facilitate the discussion on its further evolution and (2) to better define appropriate vs. less suitable application areas. Exemplary toxicological studies are presented to discuss the linearity assumptions of AOP, the management of event modifiers and compensatory mechanisms, and whether a separation of toxicodynamics from toxicokinetics including metabolism is possible in the framework of pathway plasticity. Suggestions on how to compromise between different needs of AOP stakeholders have been added. A clear definition of open questions and limitations is provided to encourage further progress in the field