‘The importance of comprehensive and transparent reporting’ In Conversation with Professor Henrik Larsson

2021 ◽  

In this podcast we speak to Professor Henrik Larsson, Professor of Psychiatric Epidemiology at Orebro University and Karolinska Institute in Sweden, and Editor in Chief of ACAMH's new journal, JCPP Advances.

2010 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 199-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosina-Martha Csöff ◽  
Gloria Macassa ◽  
Jutta Lindert

Körperliche Beschwerden sind bei Älteren weit verbreitet; diese sind bei Migranten bislang in Deutschland und international noch wenig untersucht. Unsere multizentrische Querschnittstudie erfasste körperliche Beschwerden bei Menschen im Alter zwischen 60 und 84 Jahren mit Wohnsitz in Stuttgart anhand der Kurzversion des Gießener Beschwerdebogens (GBB-24). In Deutschland wurden 648 Personen untersucht, davon 13.4 % (n = 87) nicht in Deutschland geborene. Die Geschlechterverteilung war bei Migranten und Nichtmigranten gleich; der sozioökonomische Status lag bei den Migranten etwas niedriger: 8.0 % (n = 7) der Migranten und 2.5 % (n = 14) der Nichtmigranten verfügten über höchstens vier Jahre Schulbildung; 12.6 % (n = 11) der Migranten und 8.2 % (n = 46) der Nichtmigranten hatten ein monatliches Haushaltsnettoeinkommen von unter 1000€; 26.4 % der Migranten und 38.1 % (n = 214) der Nichtmigranten verfügten über mehr als 2000€ monatlich. Somatische Beschwerden lagen bei den Migranten bei 65.5 % (n = 57) und bei den Nichtmigranten bei 55.8 % (n = 313). Frauen wiesen häufiger somatische Beschwerden auf (61.8 %) als Männer (51.8 %). Mit steigendem Alter nahmen somatische Beschwerden zu. Mit Ausnahme der Altersgruppe der 70–74-Jährigen konnte kein signifikanter Unterschied zwischen Migranten und Nichtmigranten hinsichtlich der Häufigkeit körperlicher Beschwerden gezeigt werden. Ausblick: Es werden dringend bevölkerungsrepräsentative Studien zu körperlichen Beschwerden bei Migranten benötigt.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina Kapitanova ◽  
Sharmi Biswas ◽  
Sabrina Divekar ◽  
Eric J. Kemmerer ◽  
Robert A. Rostock ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Brachial plexopathy is a potentially serious complication from stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) that has not been widely studied. Therefore, we compared datasets from two different institutions and generated a brachial plexus dose–response model, to quantify what dose constraints would be needed to minimize the effect on normal tissue while still enabling potent therapy for the tumor. Methods Two published SBRT datasets were pooled and modeled from patients at Indiana University and the Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Administration Medical Center from 1998 to 2007, as well as the Karolinska Institute from 2008 to 2013. All patients in both studies were treated with SBRT for apically located lung tumors localized superior to the aortic arch. Toxicities were graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and a probit dose response model was created with maximum likelihood parameter fitting. Results This analysis includes a total of 89 brachial plexus maximum point dose (Dmax) values from both institutions. Among the 14 patients who developed brachial plexopathy, the most common complications were grade 2, comprising 7 patients. The median follow-up was 30 months (range 6.1–72.2) in the Karolinska dataset, and the Indiana dataset had a median of 13 months (range 1–71). Both studies had a median range of 3 fractions, but in the Indiana dataset, 9 patients were treated in 4 fractions, and the paper did not differentiate between the two, so our analysis is considered to be in 3–4 fractions, one of the main limitations. The probit model showed that the risk of brachial plexopathy with Dmax of 26 Gy in 3–4 fractions is 10%, and 50% with Dmax of 70 Gy in 3–4 fractions. Conclusions This analysis is only a preliminary result because more details are needed as well as additional comprehensive datasets from a much broader cross-section of clinical practices. When more institutions join the QUANTEC and HyTEC methodology of reporting sufficient details to enable data pooling, our field will finally reach an improved understanding of human dose tolerance.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Felicitas Söhner ◽  
Nils Hansson

Abstract Background Scholars agree that Torbjörn Caspersson’s lab at the Institute of Medical Cell Research and Genetics at the Karolinska Institute, Sweden, played a key role in the first description of the so-called Q-banding technique. It laid the foundation for a new era of cytogenetic diagnostics and had a lasting impact in several areas of biology and medicine. Methods Based on a mixed-method approach, essential aspects of the history of human cytogenetics are considered via primary and secondary analysis of biographical interviews as well as the qualitative evaluation of bibliometrics. Drawing on interviews with colleagues of lab member Lore Zech (1923–2013) and contemporary publications, this paper illuminates the role of and contribution by Zech: To what extent is the discovery attached to her and what does her legacy look like today? Results The analysis of the contemporary witness interviews with colleagues, students and junior researchers shows that Lore Zech was a committed member of Caspersson's research group. In addition, memoirs by contemporary colleagues describe her outstanding skills in microscopy. The different sources paint a multifaceted picture. In addition to the historians' patterns of interpretation, different legacies can also be found within the peer group. Conclusions We argue that Zech represent the type of scientist who, although her research was acknowledged with several prizes, so far has not been part of the canon of pioneers of international cytogenetics.


2002 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 285-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Vega ◽  
Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola ◽  
Laura Andrade ◽  
Rob Bijl ◽  
Guilherme Borges ◽  
...  

1995 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 299-a-299
Author(s):  
Leonard J. Schmidt

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34) ◽  
pp. 4223-4232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa M. McShane ◽  
Daniel F. Hayes

Clinical management decisions for patients with cancer are increasingly being guided by prognostic and predictive markers. Use of these markers should be based on a sufficiently comprehensive body of unbiased evidence to establish that benefits to patients outweigh harms and to justify expenditure of health care dollars. Careful assessments of the clinical utility of markers by using comparative effectiveness research methods are urgently needed to more rigorously summarize and evaluate the evidence, but multiple factors have made such assessments difficult. The literature on tumor markers is plagued by nonpublication bias, selective reporting, and incomplete reporting. Several measures to address these problems are discussed, including development of a tumor marker study registry, greater attention to assay analytic performance and specimen quality, use of more rigorous study designs and analysis plans to establish clinical utility, and adherence to higher standards for reporting tumor marker studies. More complete and transparent reporting by adhering to criteria such as BRISQ [Biospecimen Reporting for Improved Study Quality] criteria for reporting details about specimens and REMARK [Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies] criteria for reporting a multitude of aspects relating to study design, analysis, and results, is essential for reliable assessment of study quality, detection of potential biases, and proper interpretation of study findings. Adopting these measures will improve the quality of the body of evidence available for comparative effectiveness research and enhance the ability to establish the clinical utility of prognostic and predictive tumor markers.


Neurosurgery ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 1016-1021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christer Lindquist ◽  
Lars Kihlström
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document