GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks : A systematic and transparent approach to making well-informed healthcare choices. 1. Introduction

Funding: Work on this article has been partially funded by the European Commission FP7 Program (grant agreement 258583) as part of the DECIDE project. Sole responsibility lies with the authors; the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Residuos en potencia: una aproximación teórico-práctica al audiovisual inconcluso

Lo inconcluso es, culturalmente, una categoría asociada negativamente a la frustración, al dolor y al descarte, algo que debe ser ocultado y minimizado. Sin embargo, constituye también una constante en la experiencia humana y es, como tal, meritoria de atención y análisis. Partiendo de la experiencia del ciclo de proyecciones En Potencia, Trabajo de Grado de la Lic. en Artes Audiovisuales con Orientación en Teoría y Crítica, el presente trabajo expondrá una relación entre el audiovisual inconcluso y el concepto de potencia como avenida de expansión de las posibilidades teórico-estéticas de la experiencia audiovisual priorizando su dimensión procesual. Ubicada dentro de la praxis audiovisual, esta perspectiva valoriza los residuos de la producción audiovisual, propone un posicionamiento espectatorial que requiere la intervención intelectual e, inclusive, práctica sobre los mismos materiales, poniendo en evidencia su valor como archivo.Facultad de Arte

GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworksa systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines

El trabajo en este artículo ha sido financiado en parte por el Programa FP7 de la Comisión Europea (acuerdo de subvención 258583) como parte del proyecto DECIDE. La responsabilidad recae exclusivamente sobre los autores; la Comisión Europea no se hace responsable del uso que se dé a la información contenida en este manuscrito. The work on this article has been funded in part by the European Commission's FP7 Program (grant agreement 258583) as part of the DECIDE project. The responsibility rests exclusively with the authors; The European Commission is not responsible for the use made of the information contained in this manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts

Objectives: Explicit reporting of absolute measures is important to ensure treatment effects are correctly interpreted. We examined the extent to which authors report absolute effects for patient-important outcomes in abstracts of systematic review (SR). Study Design and Setting: We searched OVID MEDLINE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify eligible SRs published in the year 2010. Citations were stratified into Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, with repeated random sampling in a 1:1 ratio. Paired reviewers screened articles and recorded abstract characteristics, including reporting of effect measures for the most patient-important outcomes of benefit and harm. Results: We included 96 Cochrane and 94 non-Cochrane reviews. About 117 (77.5%) relative measures were reported in abstracts for outcomes of benefit, whereas only 34 (22.5%) absolute measures were reported. Similarly, for outcomes of harm, 41 (87.2%) relative measures were provided in abstracts, compared with only 6 (12.8%) absolute measures. Eighteen (9.5%) abstracts reported both absolute and relative measures for outcomes of benefit, whereas only two (1.1%) abstracts reported both measures for outcomes of harm. Results were similar between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Conclusion: SR abstracts seldom report measures of absolute effect. Journal editors should insist that authors report both relative and absolute effects for patient-important outcomes. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

Systematic reviews experience major limitations in reporting absolute effects

Objectives: Expressing treatment effects in relative terms yields larger numbers than expressions in absolute terms, affecting the judgment of the clinicians and patients regarding the treatment options. It is uncertain how authors of systematic reviews (SRs) absolute effect estimates are reported in. We therefore undertook a systematic survey to identify and describe the reporting and methods for calculating absolute effect estimates in SRs. Study Design and Setting: Two reviewers independently screened title, abstract, and full text and extracted data from a sample of Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs. We used regression analyses to examine the association between study characteristics and the reporting of absolute estimates for the most patient-important outcome. Results: We included 202 SRs (98 Cochrane and 104 non-Cochrane), most of which (92.1%) included standard meta-analyses including relative estimates of effect. Of the 202 SRs, 73 (36.1%) reported absolute effect estimates for the most patient-important outcome. SRs with statistically significant effects were more likely to report absolute estimates (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval: 1.08, 4.74). The most commonly reported absolute estimates were: for each intervention, risk of adverse outcomes expressed as a percentage (41.1%); number needed to treat (26.0%); and risk for each intervention expressed as natural units or natural frequencies (24.7%). In 12.3% of the SRs that reported absolute effect estimates for both benefit and harm outcomes, harm outcomes were reported exclusively as absolute estimates. Exclusively reporting of beneficial outcomes as absolute estimates occurred in 6.8% of the SRs. Conclusions: Most SRs do not report absolute effects. Those that do often report them inadequately, thus requiring users of SRs to generate their own estimates of absolute effects. For any apparently effective or harmful intervention, SR authors should report both absolute and relative estimates to optimize the interpretation of their findings. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

Potency of human cardiosphere-derived cells from patients with ischemic heart disease is associated with robust vascular supportive ability

Cardiosphere-derived cell (CDC) infusion into damaged myocardium has shown some reparative effect; this could be improved by better selection of patients and cell subtype. CDCs isolated from patients with ischemic heart disease are able to support vessel formation in vitro but this ability varies between patients. The primary aim of our study was to investigate whether the vascular supportive function of CDCs impacts on their therapeutic potential, with the goal of improving patient stratification. A subgroup of patients produced CDCs which did not efficiently support vessel formation (poor supporter CDCs), had reduced levels of proliferation and increased senescence, despite them being isolated in the same manner and having a similar immunophenotype to CDCs able to support vessel formation. In a rodent model of myocardial infarction, poor supporter CDCs had a limited reparative effect when compared to CDCs which had efficiently supported vessel formation in vitro. This work suggests that not all patients provide cells which are suitable for cell therapy. Assessing the vascular supportive function of cells could be used to stratify which patients will truly benefit from cell therapy and those who would be better suited to an allogeneic transplant or regenerative preconditioning of their cells in a precision medicine fashion. This could reduce costs, culture times and improve clinical outcomes and patient prognosis

2020 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Management of Gout

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155484/1/art41247.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155484/2/art41247_am.pd

A gain-of-function variant in <i>DIAPH1 </i>causes dominant macrothrombocytopenia and hearing loss

Macrothrombocytopenia (MTP) is a heterogeneous group of disorders characterized by enlarged and reduced numbers of circulating platelets, sometimes resulting in abnormal bleeding. In most MTP, this phenotype arises because of altered regulation of platelet formation from megakaryocytes (MK). We report the identification of DIAPH1, which encodes the Rho-effector diaphanous-related formin 1 (DIAPH1), as a candidate gene for MTP using exome sequencing, ontological phenotyping and similarity regression. We describe two unrelated pedigrees with MTP and sensorineural hearing loss that segregate with a DIAPH1 p.R1213* variant predicting partial truncation of the DIAPH1 diaphanous autoregulatory domain. The R1213* variant was associated with reduced proplatelet formation from cultured MKs, cell clustering and abnormal cortical filamentous actin. Similarly, in platelets there was increased filamentous actin and stable microtubules, indicating constitutive activation of DIAPH1. Over-expression of DIAPH1 R1213* in cells reproduced the cytoskeletal alterations found in platelets. Our description of a novel disorder of platelet formation and hearing loss extends the repertoire of DIAPH1-related disease and provides new insights into the autoregulation of DIAPH1 activity

Nbeal2 interacts with Dock7, Sec16a, and Vac14.

Mutations in NBEAL2, the gene encoding the scaffolding protein Nbeal2, are causal of gray platelet syndrome (GPS), a rare recessive bleeding disorder characterized by platelets lacking α-granules and progressive marrow fibrosis. We present here the interactome of Nbeal2 with additional validation by reverse immunoprecipitation of Dock7, Sec16a, and Vac14 as interactors of Nbeal2. We show that GPS-causing mutations in its BEACH domain have profound and possible effects on the interaction with Dock7 and Vac14, respectively. Proximity ligation assays show that these 2 proteins are physically proximal to Nbeal2 in human megakaryocytes. In addition, we demonstrate that Nbeal2 is primarily localized in the cytoplasm and Dock7 on the membrane of or in α-granules. Interestingly, platelets from GPS cases and Nbeal2-/- mice are almost devoid of Dock7, resulting in a profound dysregulation of its signaling pathway, leading to defective actin polymerization, platelet activation, and shape change. This study shows for the first time proteins interacting with Nbeal2 and points to the dysregulation of the canonical signaling pathway of Dock7 as a possible cause of the aberrant formation of platelets in GPS cases and Nbeal2-deficient mice

Impact of missing participant data for dichotomous outcomes on pooled effect estimates in systematic reviews : a protocol for a methodological study

Abstract Background There is no consensus on how authors conducting meta-analysis should deal with trial participants with missing outcome data. The objectives of this study are to assess in Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews: (1) which categories of trial participants the systematic review authors consider as having missing participant data (MPD), (2) how trialists reported on participants with missing outcome data in trials, (3) whether systematic reviewer authors actually dealt with MPD in their meta-analyses of dichotomous outcomes consistently with their reported methods, and (4) the impact of different methods of dealing with MPD on pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses of dichotomous outcomes. Methods/Design We will conduct a methodological study of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Eligible systematic reviews will include a group-level meta-analysis of a patient-important dichotomous efficacy outcome, with a statistically significant effect estimate. Teams of two reviewers will determine eligibility and subsequently extract information from each eligible systematic review in duplicate and independently, using standardized, pre-piloted forms. The teams will then use a similar process to extract information from the trials included in the meta-analyses of interest. We will assess first which categories of trial participants the systematic reviewers consider as having MPD. Second, we will assess how trialists reported on participants with missing outcome data in trials. Third, we will compare what systematic reviewers report having done, and what they actually did, in dealing with MPD in their meta-analysis. Fourth, we will conduct imputation studies to assess the effects of different methods of dealing with MPD on the pooled effect estimates of meta-analyses. We will specifically calculate for each method (1) the percentage of systematic reviews that lose statistical significance and (2) the mean change of effect estimates across systematic reviews. Discussion The impact of different methods of dealing with MPD on pooled effect estimates will help judge the associated risk of bias in systematic reviews. Our findings will inform recommendations regarding what assumptions for MPD should be used to test the robustness of meta-analytical results