Guidance and best practices for nuclear cardiology laboratories during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: An Information Statement from ASNC and SNMMI.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Skali H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7227175 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Guidance and best practices for nuclear cardiology laboratories during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: An Information Statement from ASNC and SNMMI.
Skali Hicham H Murthy Venkatesh L VL Al-Mallah Mouaz H MH Bateman Tim M TM Beanlands Rob R Better Nathan N Calnon Dennis A DA Dilsizian Vasken V Gimelli Alessia A Pagnanelli Robert R Polk Donna M DM Soman Prem P Thompson Randall C RC Einstein Andrew J AJ Dorbala Sharmila S
Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 20200515 3
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7379750 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThis study aimed to determine adaptations orthodontists made during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic to maintain safety and determine which adaptations will remain after the pandemic.MethodsAn original 34-question survey was sent by mail to a randomized selection of practicing orthodontic specialists (n = 1000). Questions included the changes made during the pandemic in 4 categories (infection control, social distancing, appliance type, and teleorthodontics) and whether those changes will remain postpandemic.ResultsThe use of personal protective equipment increased during the pandemic, with a significant decrease anticipated after the pandemic. The most common aerosol modification during the pandemic and predicted after the pandemic was using an assistant with high-volume suction (61% and 49%, respectively; P = 0.0013). Ninety-six percent of orthodontists changed their waiting room protocol during the pandemic, but only 23% plan to continue that practice (P <0.0001). Forty-two percent of orthodontists increased clear aligners during the pandemic in response to patient demand (91%). The use of teleorthodontics increased from 8% to 68% during the pandemic and is expected to decrease significantly postpandemic. Virtual appointments are anticipated to be used for screening and consultations of new patients and monitoring active patients in clear aligners but not fixed appliances.ConclusionsThe specialty recommended patient safety modifications during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Postpandemic, enhanced personal protective equipment is expected to decrease, and high-volume suction will likely be continued for aerosol-producing procedures. Teleorthodontics will likely remain in limited use.
| S-EPMC9894768 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTesting for renin and aldosterone in clinical laboratories is complicated by pre-analytical considerations such as the posture for blood collection and susceptibility to cryoactivation of renin. From an analytical perspective, there are both renin activity and renin mass or concentration assays available. There can also be variability in result reporting practices and the aldosterone-renin ratio (ARR) cut-off applied to screen for primary aldosteronism (PA). The Institute for Quality Management in Healthcare (IQMH) Centre for Proficiency Testing surveyed laboratories on their handling of renin and aldosterone testing to better understand current practices.Design and methodsAn online survey was prepared and sent to 134 Canadian laboratories enrolled in endocrinology proficiency testing with IQMH.ResultsOne hundred twenty Ontario laboratories submitted responses. While only six (5%) laboratories perform testing for both renin and aldosterone, 108 (90%) collect and process specimens to be tested by reference laboratories. The survey revealed considerable variation in practices including the recommended state of patients prior to sample collection (for example, regarding medications or salt intake), the patient posture specifications for sample collection, the precautions taken against cryoactivation of renin, the choice of renin activity or mass assay, and the ARR cut-off used. The available literature on these factors was then reviewed.ConclusionsAlthough there is no standardized procedure for specimen collection, analysis, or result reporting for renin or aldosterone testing, we have attempted to summarize the available literature to develop evidence-based recommendations. Where laboratory practice differs from peers and/or recommended protocols, laboratories should review their practices.
| S-EPMC8145751 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This SuperSeries is composed of the SubSeries listed below.
2018-06-08 | GSE107768 | GEO
Project description:Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.
| S-EPMC10247272 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.
| S-EPMC10464882 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.
| S-EPMC10258887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.
| S-EPMC10248995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is highly contagious, mainly causing inflammatory lesions in the lungs, and can also cause damage to the intestine and liver. The rapid spread of the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia has posed complex challenges to global public health. Early detection, isolation, diagnosis, and treatment are the most effective means of prevention and control. At present, the epidemic situation of new coronavirus infection has tended to be controlled in China, and it is still in a period of rapid rise in much of the world. The current gold standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19 is the detection of coronavirus nucleic acids, but imaging has an important role in the detection of lung lesions, stratification, evaluation of treatment strategies, and differentiation of mixed infections. This Chinese expert consensus statement summarizes the imaging features of COVID-19 pneumonia and may help radiologists across the world to understand this disease better.
| S-EPMC7165105 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Enhanced cross-linking immunoprecipitation (eCLIP) featuring a size-matched input control has been recently applied to profile the binding sites of more than one hundred RNA binding proteins (RBPs). However computational pipelines and quality control metrics needed to process CLIP data at scale have yet to be well defined. Here, we describe our ENCODE eCLIP processing pipeline (https://github.com/YeoLab/eclip), enabling users to go from raw reads to processed peaks that are enriched above paired input, reproducible across biological replicates, and can be directly compared against the public ENCODE eCLIP resource. In particular, we discuss processing steps designed to address common artifacts, including properly quantifying unique RNA fragments bound by both unique genomic- and repetitive element-mapped reads. Using manual quality annotation of 350 ENCODE eCLIP experiments, we develop metrics for quality assessment of eCLIP experiments prior to and after sequencing, including library yield, number of unique fragments in the library, total binding relative information, and biological reproducibility. In particular, we quantify the commonly believed linkage between depth of sequencing and peak discovery, and derive methods for estimating required sequencing depth based on pre-sequencing metrics. Finally we provide recommendations for the common question of integrating RBP binding information with RNA-seq to generate splicing maps representing the positional effect of binding on alternative splicing. These pipelines and QC metrics enable large-scale processing and analysis of eCLIP data, and will help to standardize rigorous analysis of RBP binding data.
2018-06-08 | GSE107766 | GEO