Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and the Coastal Bays - 1997

SA V distribution data in this report are presented and discussed based on the segmentation scheme adopted by the Chesapeake Bay Program (Flemer et al., 1983) and described briefly in the Methods section of this report. This zonation scheme (Upper, Middle, and Lower zones) for Chesapeake Bay, which accommodates the Chesapeake Bay Program segmentation boundaries, was adapted from that used in previous SAV distribution reports (i.e., Orth et al., 1994) and established by Orth and Moore ( 1982), then modified by Orth et al., ( 1989). The 1996 data were edgematched using ARC/INFO GIS software, as were all the historical SAV bed data, in order to bring separately digitized USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle SA V coverages into one unified coverage for the entire Chesapeake Bay (see Methods). Therefore, SAV distribution data presented in this report reflect edgematching adjustments, and differ from previously published data for those years derived from separate coverages which were not edgematched (i.e., Orth et al., 1992, 1993, and 1994)

2016 Aerial Imagery Acquired to Monitor the Distribution and Abundance of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Bays

Multispectral aerial imagery acquired in 2016 to monitor the distribution and abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay and coastal bays

Evaluation of Color Imagery and Direct Referencing for Mapping Submersed Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay - Final Report

The VIMS Annual Submersed Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Monitoring Program has used black and white aerial photography to map SAV in Chesapeake Bay each year from 1984 to the present, with the exception of 1988. In 2008, VIMS initiated a pilot project to address two potential enhancements identified by a recent external program review: color film and direct referencing technology. Simultaneous color and black and white imagery was captured for three regions. In addition, GPS/inertial mapping unit (IMU) direct referencing data was acquired for two of the regions

Comparing lumbo-pelvic kinematics in people with and without back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Clinicians commonly examine posture and movement in people with the belief that correcting dysfunctional movement may reduce pain. If dysfunctional movement is to be accurately identified, clinicians should know what constitutes normal movement and how this differs in people with low back pain (LBP). This systematic review examined studies that compared biomechanical aspects of lumbo-pelvic movement in people with and without LBP. Methods. MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, AMI, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ISI Web of Science were searched from inception until January 2014 for relevant studies. Studies had to compare adults with and without LBP using skin surface measurement techniques to measure lumbo-pelvic posture or movement. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, and identified and extracted data. Standardised mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for group differences between people with and without LBP, and where possible, meta-analyses were performed. Within-group variability in all measurements was also compared. Results: The search identified 43 eligible studies. Compared to people without LBP, on average, people with LBP display: (i) no difference in lordosis angle (8 studies), (ii) reduced lumbar ROM (19 studies), (iii) no difference in lumbar relative to hip contribution to end-range flexion (4 studies), (iv) no difference in standing pelvic tilt angle (3 studies), (v) slower movement (8 studies), and (vi) reduced proprioception (17 studies). Movement variability appeared greater for people with LBP for flexion, lateral flexion and rotation ROM, and movement speed, but not for other movement characteristics. Considerable heterogeneity exists between studies, including a lack of detail or standardization between studies on the criteria used to define participants as people with LBP (cases) or without LBP (controls). Conclusions: On average, people with LBP have reduced lumbar ROM and proprioception, and move more slowly compared to people without LBP. Whether these deficits exist prior to LBP onset is unknown

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]

Prehospital transdermal glyceryl trinitrate in patients with ultra-acute presumed stroke (RIGHT-2): an ambulance-based, randomised, sham-controlled, blinded, phase 3 trial

Background High blood pressure is common in acute stroke and is a predictor of poor outcome; however, large trials of lowering blood pressure have given variable results, and the management of high blood pressure in ultra-acute stroke remains unclear. We investigated whether transdermal glyceryl trinitrate (GTN; also known as nitroglycerin), a nitric oxide donor, might improve outcome when administered very early after stroke onset. Methods We did a multicentre, paramedic-delivered, ambulance-based, prospective, randomised, sham-controlled, blinded-endpoint, phase 3 trial in adults with presumed stroke within 4 h of onset, face-arm-speech-time score of 2 or 3, and systolic blood pressure 120 mm Hg or higher. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive transdermal GTN (5 mg once daily for 4 days; the GTN group) or a similar sham dressing (the sham group) in UK based ambulances by paramedics, with treatment continued in hospital. Paramedics were unmasked to treatment, whereas participants were masked. The primary outcome was the 7-level modified Rankin Scale (mRS; a measure of functional outcome) at 90 days, assessed by central telephone follow-up with masking to treatment. Analysis was hierarchical, first in participants with a confirmed stroke or transient ischaemic attack (cohort 1), and then in all participants who were randomly assigned (intention to treat, cohort 2) according to the statistical analysis plan. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN26986053. Findings Between Oct 22, 2015, and May 23, 2018, 516 paramedics from eight UK ambulance services recruited 1149 participants (n=568 in the GTN group, n=581 in the sham group). The median time to randomisation was 71 min (IQR 45–116). 597 (52%) patients had ischaemic stroke, 145 (13%) had intracerebral haemorrhage, 109 (9%) had transient ischaemic attack, and 297 (26%) had a non-stroke mimic at the final diagnosis of the index event. In the GTN group, participants’ systolic blood pressure was lowered by 5·8 mm Hg compared with the sham group (p<0·0001), and diastolic blood pressure was lowered by 2·6 mm Hg (p=0·0026) at hospital admission. We found no difference in mRS between the groups in participants with a final diagnosis of stroke or transient ischaemic stroke (cohort 1): 3 (IQR 2–5; n=420) in the GTN group versus 3 (2–5; n=408) in the sham group, adjusted common odds ratio for poor outcome 1·25 (95% CI 0·97–1·60; p=0·083); we also found no difference in mRS between all patients (cohort 2: 3 [2–5]; n=544, in the GTN group vs 3 [2–5]; n=558, in the sham group; 1·04 [0·84–1·29]; p=0·69). We found no difference in secondary outcomes, death (treatment-related deaths: 36 in the GTN group vs 23 in the sham group [p=0·091]), or serious adverse events (188 in the GTN group vs 170 in the sham group [p=0·16]) between treatment groups. Interpretation Prehospital treatment with transdermal GTN does not seem to improve functional outcome in patients with presumed stroke. It is feasible for UK paramedics to obtain consent and treat patients with stroke in the ultraacute prehospital setting. Funding British Heart Foundation

Evidence synthesis to inform model-based cost-effectiveness evaluations of diagnostic tests: a methodological systematic review of health technology assessments

Background: Evaluations of diagnostic tests are challenging because of the indirect nature of their impact on patient outcomes. Model-based health economic evaluations of tests allow different types of evidence from various sources to be incorporated and enable cost-effectiveness estimates to be made beyond the duration of available study data. To parameterize a health-economic model fully, all the ways a test impacts on patient health must be quantified, including but not limited to diagnostic test accuracy. Methods: We assessed all UK NIHR HTA reports published May 2009-July 2015. Reports were included if they evaluated a diagnostic test, included a model-based health economic evaluation and included a systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy. From each eligible report we extracted information on the following topics: 1) what evidence aside from test accuracy was searched for and synthesised, 2) which methods were used to synthesise test accuracy evidence and how did the results inform the economic model, 3) how/whether threshold effects were explored, 4) how the potential dependency between multiple tests in a pathway was accounted for, and 5) for evaluations of tests targeted at the primary care setting, how evidence from differing healthcare settings was incorporated. Results: The bivariate or HSROC model was implemented in 20/22 reports that met all inclusion criteria. Test accuracy data for health economic modelling was obtained from meta-analyses completely in four reports, partially in fourteen reports and not at all in four reports. Only 2/7 reports that used a quantitative test gave clear threshold recommendations. All 22 reports explored the effect of uncertainty in accuracy parameters but most of those that used multiple tests did not allow for dependence between test results. 7/22 tests were potentially suitable for primary care but the majority found limited evidence on test accuracy in primary care settings. Conclusions: The uptake of appropriate meta-analysis methods for synthesising evidence on diagnostic test accuracy in UK NIHR HTAs has improved in recent years. Future research should focus on other evidence requirements for cost-effectiveness assessment, threshold effects for quantitative tests and the impact of multiple diagnostic tests