On the assimilation of ice velocity and concentration data into large-scale sea ice models

Data assimilation into sea ice models designed for climate studies has started about 15 years ago. In most of the studies conducted so far, it is assumed that the improvement brought by the assimilation is straightforward. However, some studies suggest this might not be true. In order to elucidate this question and to find an appropriate way to further assimilate sea ice concentration and velocity observations into a global sea ice-ocean model, we analyze here results from a number of twin experiments (i.e. experiments in which the assimilated data are model outputs) carried out with a simplified model of the Arctic sea ice pack. Our objective is to determine to what degree the assimilation of ice velocity and/or concentration data improves the global performance of the model and, more specifically, reduces the error in the computed ice thickness. A simple optimal interpolation scheme is used, and outputs from a control run and from perturbed experiments without and with data assimilation are thoroughly compared. Our results indicate that, under certain conditions depending on the assimilation weights and the type of model error, the assimilation of ice velocity data enhances the model performance. The assimilation of ice concentration data can also help in improving the model behavior, but it has to be handled with care because of the strong connection between ice concentration and ice thickness. This study is first step towards real data assimilation into NEMO-LIM, a global sea ice-ocean model

Optimising the future Belgian offshore wind farm monitoring programme

Six years of monitoring triggered a reflection on how to best continue with the monitoring programme. The basic monitoring has to be rationalised at the level of the likelihood of impact detection, the meaningfulness of impact size and representativeness of the findings. Targeted monitoring should continue to disentangle processes behind the observed impact, for instance the overarching artificial reef effect created by wind farms. The major challenge however remains to achieve a reliable assessment of the cumulative impacts. Continuing consultation and collaboration within the Belgian offshore wind farm monitoring team and with foreign marine scientists and managers will ensure an optimisation of the future monitoring programme

Primary versus early secondary referral to a specialized neurotrauma center in patients with moderate/severe traumatic brain injury: a CENTER TBI study.

BackgroundPrehospital care for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) varies with some emergency medical systems recommending direct transport of patients with moderate to severe TBI to hospitals with specialist neurotrauma care (SNCs). The aim of this study is to assess variation in levels of early secondary referral within European SNCs and to compare the outcomes of directly admitted and secondarily transferred patients.MethodsPatients with moderate and severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale ResultsA total of 1347 moderate/severe TBI patients from 53 SNCs in 18 European countries were included. Of these 1347 patients, 195 (14.5%) were admitted after early secondary referral. Secondarily referred moderate/severe TBI patients presented more often with a CT abnormality: mass lesion (52% vs. 34%), midline shift (54% vs. 36%) and acute subdural hematoma (77% vs. 65%). After adjusting for case-mix, there was a large European variation in early secondary referral, with a median OR of 1.69 between countries. Early secondary referral was not associated with functional outcome (adjusted OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.78-1.69), nor with survival at discharge (1.05, 0.58-1.90).ConclusionsAcross Europe, substantial practice variation exists in the proportion of secondarily referred TBI patients at SNCs that is not explained by case mix. Within SNCs early secondary referral does not seem to impact functional outcome and survival after stabilisation in a non-specialised hospital. Future research should identify which patients with TBI truly benefit from direct transportation

Tracheal intubation in traumatic brain injury: a multicentre prospective observational study

Background We aimed to study the associations between pre- and in-hospital tracheal intubation and outcomes in traumatic brain injury (TBI), and whether the association varied according to injury severity. Methods Data from the international prospective pan-European cohort study, Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research for TBI (CENTER-TBI), were used (n=4509). For prehospital intubation, we excluded self-presenters. For in-hospital intubation, patients whose tracheas were intubated on-scene were excluded. The association between intubation and outcome was analysed with ordinal regression with adjustment for the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI variables and extracranial injury. We assessed whether the effect of intubation varied by injury severity by testing the added value of an interaction term with likelihood ratio tests. Results In the prehospital analysis, 890/3736 (24%) patients had their tracheas intubated at scene. In the in-hospital analysis, 460/2930 (16%) patients had their tracheas intubated in the emergency department. There was no adjusted overall effect on functional outcome of prehospital intubation (odds ratio=1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.79–1.28; P=0.96), and the adjusted overall effect of in-hospital intubation was not significant (odds ratio=0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.65–1.13; P=0.28). However, prehospital intubation was associated with better functional outcome in patients with higher thorax and abdominal Abbreviated Injury Scale scores (P=0.009 and P=0.02, respectively), whereas in-hospital intubation was associated with better outcome in patients with lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores (P=0.01): in-hospital intubation was associated with better functional outcome in patients with Glasgow Coma Scale scores of 10 or lower. Conclusion The benefits and harms of tracheal intubation should be carefully evaluated in patients with TBI to optimise benefit. This study suggests that extracranial injury should influence the decision in the prehospital setting, and level of consciousness in the in-hospital setting. Clinical trial registration NCT02210221

How do 66 European institutional review boards approve one protocol for an international prospective observational study on traumatic brain injury? Experiences from the CENTER-TBI study

Background The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency. Methods We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe. Results From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75-224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074). Conclusion We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries.Peer reviewe