Charge-separated atmospheric neutrino-induced muons in the MINOS far detector

We found 140 neutrino-induced muons in 854.24 live days in the MINOS far detector, which has an acceptance for neutrino-induced muons of 6.91 x 10{sup 6} cm{sup 2} sr. We looked for evidence of neutrino disappearance in this data set by computing the ratio of the number of low momentum muons to the sum of the number of high momentum and unknown momentum muons for both data and Monte Carlo expectation in the absence of neutrino oscillations. The ratio of data and Monte Carlo ratios, R, is R = 0.65{sub 0.12}{sup +0.15}(stat) {+-} 0.09(syst), a result that is consistent with an oscillation signal. A fit to the data for the oscillation parameters sin{sup 2} 2{theta}{sub 23} and {Delta}m{sub 23}{sup 2} excludes the null oscillation hypothesis at the 94% confidence level. We separated the muons into {mu}{sup -} and {mu}{sup +} in both the data and Monte Carlo events and found the ratio of the total number of {mu}{sup -} to {mu}{sup +} in both samples. The ratio of those ratios, {cflx R}{sub CPT}, is a test of CPT conservation. The result {cflx R}{sub CPT} = 0.72{sub -0.18}{sup +0.24}(stat){sub -0.04}{sup +0.08}(syst), is consistent with CPT conservation

A Search for Lorentz Invariance and CPT Violation with the MINOS Far Detector

We searched for a sidereal modulation in the MINOS far detector neutrino rate. Such a signal would be a consequence of Lorentz and CPT violation as described by the Standard-Model Extension framework. It also would be the first detection of a perturbative effect to conventional neutrino mass oscillations. We found no evidence for this sidereal signature and the upper limits placed on the magnitudes of the Lorentz and CPT violating coefficients describing the theory are an improvement by factors of 20-510 over the current best limits found using the MINOS near detector

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care