Quantum memories for fundamental science in space

Investigating and verifying the connections between the foundations of quantum mechanics and general relativity will require extremely sensitive quantum experiments. To provide ultimate insight into this fascinating area of physics, the realization of dedicated experiments in space will sooner or later become a necessity. Quantum technologies, and among them quantum memories in particular, are providing novel approaches to reach conclusive experimental results due to their advanced state of development backed by decades of progress. Storing quantum states for prolonged time will make it possible to study Bell tests on astronomical baselines, to increase measurement precision for investigations of gravitational effects on quantum systems, or enable distributed networks of quantum sensors and clocks. We here promote the case of exploiting quantum memories for fundamental physics in space, and discuss both distinct experiments as well as potential quantum memory platforms and their performance

Prediction of non-isothermal ternary gas-phase breakthrough experiments based on binary data

The results of breakthrough experiments in an adsorption column packed with commercial activated carbon for three binary CO2/N2 mixtures as well as for two ternary CO2/N2/H2 mixtures are presented. The experiments were carried out at two different temperatures (25 and 45°C), four different pressures (1, 5, 10 and 20bar) and three different flow rates. To analyze the experiments, the breakthrough profiles are simulated using a one-dimensional model consisting of material and energy balances together with the necessary constitutive equations. Transport parameters such as the heat and mass transfer coefficients are fitted to the results from the experiments with the binary mixtures (CO2/N2) and then compared to parameters obtained in a previous work (Adsorption 18: 143-161, 2012) for binary CO2/H2 mixtures. Furthermore, the parameters obtained for binary mixtures are used to predict the outcome of breakthrough experiments with ternary CO2/N2/H2 mixtures. These simulations are then tested by experiments, showing that their prediction capability is rather satisfactory for a large range of experimental conditions

Systematic review finds that study data not published in full text articles have unclear impact on meta-analyses results in medical research.

A meta-analysis as part of a systematic review aims to provide a thorough, comprehensive and unbiased statistical summary of data from the literature. However, relevant study results could be missing from a meta-analysis because of selective publication and inadequate dissemination. If missing outcome data differ systematically from published ones, a meta-analysis will be biased with an inaccurate assessment of the intervention effect. As part of the EU-funded OPEN project (www.open-project.eu) we conducted a systematic review that assessed whether the inclusion of data that were not published at all and/or published only in the grey literature influences pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses and leads to different interpretation. Systematic review of published literature (methodological research projects). Four bibliographic databases were searched up to February 2016 without restriction of publication year or language. Methodological research projects were considered eligible for inclusion if they reviewed a cohort of meta-analyses which (i) compared pooled effect estimates of meta-analyses of health care interventions according to publication status of data or (ii) examined whether the inclusion of unpublished or grey literature data impacts the result of a meta-analysis. Seven methodological research projects including 187 meta-analyses comparing pooled treatment effect estimates according to different publication status were identified. Two research projects showed that published data showed larger pooled treatment effects in favour of the intervention than unpublished or grey literature data (Ratio of ORs 1.15, 95% CI 1.04-1.28 and 1.34, 95% CI 1.09-1.66). In the remaining research projects pooled effect estimates and/or overall findings were not significantly changed by the inclusion of unpublished and/or grey literature data. The precision of the pooled estimate was increased with narrower 95% confidence interval. Although we may anticipate that systematic reviews and meta-analyses not including unpublished or grey literature study results are likely to overestimate the treatment effects, current empirical research shows that this is only the case in a minority of reviews. Therefore, currently, a meta-analyst should particularly consider time, effort and costs when adding such data to their analysis. Future research is needed to identify which reviews may benefit most from including unpublished or grey data

RARE-Bestpractices: a platform for sharing best practices for the management of rare diseases

No abstract available

RARE-Bestpractices: a platform for sharing best practices for the management of rare diseases

No abstract available

Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries

BACKGROUND: The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%-52.4%, I2 = 94.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%-65.9%, I2 = 98.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2-3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6-2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased

A Needs Assessment of New York State Veterans: Final Report to the New York State Health Foundation, Summary

Mental health disorders and other types of impairments resulting from deployment experiences are beginning to emerge, but fundamental gaps remain in our knowledge about the needs of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, the services available to meet those needs, and the experiences of veterans who have tried to use these services. The current study focuses directly on the veterans living in New York state; it includes veterans who currently use U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) services as well as those who do not; and it looks at needs across a broad range of domains. The authors collected information and advice from a series of qualitative interviews with veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)/Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) residing in New York, as well as their family members. In addition, they conducted a quantitative assessment of the needs of veterans and their spouses from a sample that is broadly representative of OEF/OIF veterans in New York state. Finally, they conducted a review the services currently available in New York state for veterans. The study found substantially elevated rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depression among veterans. It also found that both VA and non-VA services are critically important for addressing veterans' needs, and that the health care systems that serve veterans are extremely complicated. Addressing veterans' mental health needs will require a multipronged approach: reducing barriers to seeking treatment; improving the sustainment of, or adherence to, treatment; and improving the quality of the services being delivered. Finally, veterans have other serious needs besides mental health care and would benefit from a broad range of services

Mindfulness-based stress reduction for women diagnosed with breast cancer

Background Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. Diagnosis and treatment may drastically affect quality of life, causing symptoms such as sleep disorders, depression and anxiety. Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) is a programme that aims to reduce stress by developing mindfulness, meaning a non-judgmental, accepting moment-by-moment awareness. MBSR seems to benefit patients with mood disorders and chronic pain, and it may also benefit women with breast cancer. Objectives To assess the effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) in women diagnosed with breast cancer. Search methods In April 2018, we conducted a comprehensive electronic search for studies of MBSR in women with breast cancer, in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries (World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov ). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings. Selection criteria Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing MBSR versus no intervention in women with breast cancer. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Using a standardised data form, the review authors extracted data in duplicate on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest (quality of life, fatigue, depression, anxiety, quality of sleep, overall survival and adverse events). For outcomes assessed with the same instrument, we used the mean difference (MD) as a summary statistic for meta-analysis; for those assessed with different instruments, we used the standardised mean difference (SMD). The effect of MBSR was assessed in the short term (end of intervention), medium term (up to 6 months after intervention) and long term (up to 24 months after intervention). Main results Fourteen RCTs fulfilled our inclusion criteria, with most studies reporting that they included women with early breast cancer. Ten RCTs involving 1571 participants were eligible for meta-analysis, while four studies involving 185 participants did not report usable results. Queries to the authors of these four studies were unsuccessful. All studies were at high risk of performance and detection bias since participants could not be blinded, and only 3 of 14 studies were at low risk of selection bias. Eight of 10 studies included in the meta-analysis recruited participants with early breast cancer (the remaining 2 trials did not restrict inclusion to a certain cancer type). Most trials considered only women who had completed cancer treatment. MBSR may improve quality of life slightly at the end of the intervention (based on low-certainty evidence from three studies with a total of 339 participants) but may result in little to no difference up to 6 months (based on low-certainty evidence from three studies involving 428 participants). Long-term data on quality of life (up to two years after completing MBSR) were available for one study in 97 participants (MD 0.00 on questionnaire FACT-B, 95% CI -5.82 to 5.82; low-certainty evidence). In the short term, MBSR probably reduces fatigue (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 studies; 693 participants). It also probably slightly reduces anxiety (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.08; moderate-certainty evidence; 6 studies; 749 participants), and it reduces depression (SMD -0.54, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.22; high-certainty evidence; 6 studies; 745 participants). It probably slightly improves quality of sleep (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.04; moderate-certainty evidence; 4 studies; 475 participants). However, these confidence intervals (except for short-term depression) are compatible with both an improvement and little to no difference. In the medium term, MBSR probably results in little to no difference in medium-term fatigue (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.23; moderate-certainty evidence; 4 studies; 607 participants). The intervention probably slightly reduces anxiety (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.07; moderate-certainty evidence; 7 studies; 1094 participants), depression (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.06; moderate-certainty evidence; 7 studies; 1097 participants) and slightly improves quality of sleep (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.08; moderate-certainty evidence; 4 studies; 654 participants). However, these confidence intervals are compatible with both an improvement and little to no difference. In the long term, moderate-certainty evidence shows that MBSR probably results in little to no difference in anxiety (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.16; 2 studies; 360 participants) or depression (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.05; 2 studies; 352 participants). No long-term data were available for fatigue or quality of sleep. No study reported data on survival or adverse events. Authors' conclusions MBSR may improve quality of life slightly at the end of the intervention but may result in little to no difference later on. MBSR probably slightly reduces anxiety, depression and slightly improves quality of sleep at both the end of the intervention and up to six months later. A beneficial effect on fatigue was apparent at the end of the intervention but not up to six months later. Up to two years after the intervention, MBSR probably results in little to no difference in anxiety and depression; there were no data available for fatigue or quality of sleep