Combined numerical and experimental simulations of unsteady ship airwakes

Abstract To aid pilot training for shipboard helicopter operations, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is increasingly being performed to model ship airwakes. The calculated velocity field data are exported to the flight simulator as look-up tables. In the Canadian context, work to expand ship airwake simulation capabilities for future use in flight simulators is currently being done using the open-source OpenFOAM. The current paper reports on the progress of this work using the simple frigate shape 2 (SFS2), which is a highly simplified ship geometry, to validate the method for low-sea-state (also referenced to as static) cases. By employing delayed detached eddy simulations (DDES), OpenFOAM was able to compute the unsteady ship airwakes well compared to experimental data and other references. After validation, OpenFOAM was applied to the Canadian Patrol Frigate (CPF), a more representative example of a naval vessel. Hybrid structured and unstructured grids were used because of the complexity of the CPF geometry. The agreement between the computed and the experimental results for the static CPF was reasonable, which built a solid foundation supporting further development of simulation for the CPF in motion

Decomposition of carbon emission driving factors and judgment of peak status in countries along the Belt and Road

Most of the countries along the Belt and Road are still developing, with their carbon emissions yet to peak. There is a lack of comprehensive analysis and research to judge these countries' current carbon peak state and quantify key driving factors contributing to their carbon emissions. This study aims to fill this gap.A new method for judging a country's peak carbon status based on a time series of carbon emissions is developed. We divide the status of all countries along the Belt and Road into four categories: reached the peak, peak plateau period 1 (the downward trend is not significant), peak plateau period 2 (obvious recession), and not reached the peak. LMDI factorization is used to decompose the change in carbon emissions of energy consumption into multiple factors: carbon intensity, energy intensity, economic output, and population size, based on Kaya's identity theory. The carbon emission and socioeconomic databases from 2000 to 2019 are utilized for this analysis. The main positive driving factor of the three countries (Hungary, Romania, Czech Republic) that have reached the peak is GDP PPP per population, while other driving factors make negative contributions to carbon emissions. In some years, these countries briefly experienced a negative contribution of GDP PPP per population to carbon emissions. The driving factors of carbon emissions for countries in the peak plateau period are not stable, with contributions of GDP PPP per population, energy intensity, and carbon intensity fluctuating periodically. In countries that have not reached the peak of carbon emissions, population growth and economic growth are significant positive contributors, while the effect of driving factors that negatively contribute to carbon emissions is less obvious.The study's findings provide valuable insights into the carbon emission peak status and driving factors of countries along the Belt and Road, which can be used to guide policymaking and future research in addressing climate change and promoting sustainable development in these regions

S-nitrosylation of the zinc finger protein SRG1 regulates plant immunity

Upon pathogen infection plants accumulate nitric oxide which subsequently regulates defence gene expression. Here, the authors show that S-nitrosylation of the zinc finger transcription factor SRG1 affects transcriptional suppression and contributes to activation of defence responses

Actively implementing an evidence-based feeding guideline for critically ill patients (NEED): a multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled trial

Background: Previous cluster-randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of implementing evidence-based guidelines for nutrition therapy in critical illness do not consistently demonstrate patient benefits. A large-scale, sufficiently powered study is therefore warranted to ascertain the effects of guideline implementation on patient-centered outcomes. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cluster-randomized, parallel-controlled trial in intensive care units (ICUs) across China. We developed an evidence-based feeding guideline. ICUs randomly allocated to the guideline group formed a local "intervention team", which actively implemented the guideline using standardized educational materials, a graphical feeding protocol, and live online education outreach meetings conducted by members of the study management committee. ICUs assigned to the control group remained unaware of the guideline content. All ICUs enrolled patients who were expected to stay in the ICU longer than seven days. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days of enrollment. Results: Forty-eight ICUs were randomized to the guideline group and 49 to the control group. From March 2018 to July 2019, the guideline ICUs enrolled 1399 patients, and the control ICUs enrolled 1373 patients. Implementation of the guideline resulted in significantly earlier EN initiation (1.20 vs. 1.55 mean days to initiation of EN; difference − 0.40 [95% CI − 0.71 to − 0.09]; P = 0.01) and delayed PN initiation (1.29 vs. 0.80 mean days to start of PN; difference 1.06 [95% CI 0.44 to 1.67]; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (14.2% vs. 15.2%; difference − 1.6% [95% CI − 4.3% to 1.2%]; P = 0.42) between groups. Conclusions: In this large-scale, multicenter trial, active implementation of an evidence-based feeding guideline reduced the time to commencement of EN and overall PN use but did not translate to a reduction in mortality from critical illness. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN12233792. Registered November 20th, 2017

Actively implementing an evidence-based feeding guideline for critically ill patients (NEED): a multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled trial.

BackgroundPrevious cluster-randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of implementing evidence-based guidelines for nutrition therapy in critical illness do not consistently demonstrate patient benefits. A large-scale, sufficiently powered study is therefore warranted to ascertain the effects of guideline implementation on patient-centered outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, cluster-randomized, parallel-controlled trial in intensive care units (ICUs) across China. We developed an evidence-based feeding guideline. ICUs randomly allocated to the guideline group formed a local "intervention team", which actively implemented the guideline using standardized educational materials, a graphical feeding protocol, and live online education outreach meetings conducted by members of the study management committee. ICUs assigned to the control group remained unaware of the guideline content. All ICUs enrolled patients who were expected to stay in the ICU longer than seven days. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days of enrollment.ResultsForty-eight ICUs were randomized to the guideline group and 49 to the control group. From March 2018 to July 2019, the guideline ICUs enrolled 1399 patients, and the control ICUs enrolled 1373 patients. Implementation of the guideline resulted in significantly earlier EN initiation (1.20 vs. 1.55 mean days to initiation of EN; difference - 0.40 [95% CI - 0.71 to - 0.09]; P = 0.01) and delayed PN initiation (1.29 vs. 0.80 mean days to start of PN; difference 1.06 [95% CI 0.44 to 1.67]; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (14.2% vs. 15.2%; difference - 1.6% [95% CI - 4.3% to 1.2%]; P = 0.42) between groups.ConclusionsIn this large-scale, multicenter trial, active implementation of an evidence-based feeding guideline reduced the time to commencement of EN and overall PN use but did not translate to a reduction in mortality from critical illness.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN12233792 . Registered November 20th, 2017

Actively implementing an evidence-based feeding guideline for critically ill patients (NEED): a multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled trial (vol 26, 46, 2022)

BackgroundPrevious cluster-randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of implementing evidence-based guidelines for nutrition therapy in critical illness do not consistently demonstrate patient benefits. A large-scale, sufficiently powered study is therefore warranted to ascertain the effects of guideline implementation on patient-centered outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, cluster-randomized, parallel-controlled trial in intensive care units (ICUs) across China. We developed an evidence-based feeding guideline. ICUs randomly allocated to the guideline group formed a local "intervention team", which actively implemented the guideline using standardized educational materials, a graphical feeding protocol, and live online education outreach meetings conducted by members of the study management committee. ICUs assigned to the control group remained unaware of the guideline content. All ICUs enrolled patients who were expected to stay in the ICU longer than seven days. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days of enrollment.ResultsForty-eight ICUs were randomized to the guideline group and 49 to the control group. From March 2018 to July 2019, the guideline ICUs enrolled 1399 patients, and the control ICUs enrolled 1373 patients. Implementation of the guideline resulted in significantly earlier EN initiation (1.20 vs. 1.55 mean days to initiation of EN; difference - 0.40 [95% CI - 0.71 to - 0.09]; P = 0.01) and delayed PN initiation (1.29 vs. 0.80 mean days to start of PN; difference 1.06 [95% CI 0.44 to 1.67]; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (14.2% vs. 15.2%; difference - 1.6% [95% CI - 4.3% to 1.2%]; P = 0.42) between groups.ConclusionsIn this large-scale, multicenter trial, active implementation of an evidence-based feeding guideline reduced the time to commencement of EN and overall PN use but did not translate to a reduction in mortality from critical illness.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN12233792 . Registered November 20th, 2017

Interventions to treat premature ejaculation: a systematic review short report

Background: Premature ejaculation (PE) is commonly defined as ejaculation with minimal sexual stimulation before, on or shortly after penetration and before the person wishes it. PE can be either lifelong and present since first sexual experiences (primary), or acquired (secondary), beginning later (Godpodinoff ML. Premature ejaculation: clinical subgroups and etiology. J Sex Marital Ther 1989;15:130–4). Treatments include behavioural and pharmacological interventions. Objective: To systematically review evidence for clinical effectiveness of behavioural, topical and systemic treatments for PE. Data sources: The following databases were searched from inception to 6 August 2013 for published and unpublished research evidence: MEDLINE; EMBASE; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; The Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment database; ISI Web of Science, including Science Citation Index, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. The US Food and Drug Administration website and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) website were also searched. Methods: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adult men with PE were eligible (or non-RCTs in the absence of RCTs). RCT data were extrapolated from review articles when available. The primary outcome was intravaginal ejaculatory latency time (IELT). Data were meta-analysed when possible. Other outcomes included sexual satisfaction, control over ejaculation, relationship satisfaction, self-esteem, quality of life, treatment acceptability and adverse events (AEs). Results: A total of 103 studies (102 RCTs, 65 from reviews) were included. RCTs were available for all interventions except yoga. The following interventions demonstrated significant improvements (p < 0.05) in arithmetic mean difference in IELT compared with placebo: topical anaesthetics – eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA®, AstraZeneca), topical eutectic mixture for PE (Plethora Solutions Ltd) spray; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) – citalopram (Cipramil®, Lundbeck), escitalopram (Cipralex®, Lundbeck), fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, dapoxetine (Priligy®, Menarini), 30 mg or 60 mg; serotonin–noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors – duloxetine (Cymbalta®, Eli Lilly & Co Ltd); tricyclic antidepressants – inhaled clomipramine 4 mg; phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE5) inhibitors – vardenafil (Levitra®, Bayer), tadalafil (Cialis®, Eli Lilly & Co Ltd); opioid analgesics – tramadol (Zydol SR®, Grünenthal). Improvements in sexual satisfaction and other outcomes compared with placebo were evident for SSRIs, PDE5 inhibitors and tramadol. Outcomes for interventions not compared with placebo were as follows: behavioural therapies – improvements over wait list control in IELT and other outcomes, behavioural therapy plus pharmacotherapy better than either therapy alone; alpha blockers – terazosin (Hytrin®, AMCO) not significantly different to antidepressants in ejaculation control; acupuncture – improvements over sham acupuncture in IELT, conflicting results for comparisons with SSRIs; Chinese medicine – improvements over treatment as usual; delay device – improvements in IELT when added to stop–start technique; yoga – improved IELT over baseline, fluoxetine better than yoga. Treatment-related AEs were evident with most pharmacological interventions. Limitations: Although data extraction from reviews was optimised when more than one review reported data for the same RCT, the reliability of the data extraction within these reviews cannot be guaranteed by this assessment report. Conclusions: Several interventions significantly improved IELT. Many interventions also improved sexual satisfaction and other outcomes. However, assessment of longer-term safety and effectiveness is required to evaluate whether or not initial treatment effects are maintained long term, whether or not dose escalation is required, how soon treatment effects end following treatment cessation and whether or not treatments can be stopped and resumed at a later time. In addition, assessment of the AEs associated with long-term treatment and whether or not different doses have differing AE profiles is required