| 1. |
- Abolins, M., et al.
(författare)
-
The ATLAS Data Acquisition and High Level Trigger system
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Journal of Instrumentation. - 1748-0221 .- 1748-0221. ; 11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper describes the data acquisition and high level trigger system of the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, as deployed during Run 1. Data flow as well as control, configuration and monitoring aspects are addressed. An overview of the functionality of the system and of its performance is presented and design choices are discussed.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Alexandrov, Andrei V., et al.
(författare)
-
Suggestions for Reviewing Manuscripts
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Cerebrovascular Diseases. - : S. Karger AG. - 1421-9786 .- 1015-9770. ; 28:3, s. 243-246
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Scientific reviewing is a voluntary process to determine if a manuscript deserves publication. REVIEW means: Responsibly Evaluate, Verify and Improve the manuscript, Educate the authors and editors, and Weigh your expert opinion against the submitted work. Provide your review in a respectful, unbiased and timely manner. Review Methods: Make sure editors know about your willingness to review and your particular area(s) of expertise. If you find yourself in a conflict of interest, decline to participate in reviewing. If you accept, complete reviews on time. Determine and rate (1) the methodological validity, (2) originality, (3) significance of findings, (4) the style and clarity of presentation and (5) the findings' interest to the readership of the journal for which you are asked to review a manuscript. Specifically evaluate (6) if the results support any claims or conclusions made and, most importantly, (7) if the abstract correctly reflects the full content of a manuscript. Summarize your review in specific comments to the authors. Make recommendations whether to accept, revise or reject the manuscript to the editor only. Review Results: Start with a brief summary of the manuscript's subject, strengths and key findings/claims. Present your specific criticisms and suggestions in numbered lists for the authors to address. Never use demeaning and offensive words or sarcasm since, in the first place, this reflects upon your own ethics and integrity as well as upon the journal's. Use a constructive tone, and if you see any deficiencies, educate the authors in a respectful manner so that, even if a manuscript is rejected, they will learn from you, improve the manuscript or conduct a better study in the future. Also include ratings from 1 to 7 in your comments to the authors, as far as they are relevant and may explain your final decision. Conclusions: Judge others as you would like to be judged yourself. We hope these suggestions serve to help new reviewers and refresh the willingness of battle-hardened veterans to continuously serve the medical literature. Copyright (C) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
|
|
| 5. |
- Goyal, Nitin, et al.
(författare)
-
Medical Management vs Mechanical Thrombectomy for Mild Strokes: An International Multicenter Study and Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: JAMA Neurology. - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 2168-6149. ; 77:1, s. 16-24
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- © 2019 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Importance: The benefit of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in patients with stroke presenting with mild deficits (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score <6) owing to emergency large-vessel occlusion (ELVO) remains uncertain. Objective: To assess the outcomes of patients with mild-deficits ELVO (mELVO) treated with MT vs best medical management (bMM). Data Sources: We retrospectively pooled patients with mELVO during a 5-year period from 16 centers. A meta-analysis of studies reporting efficacy and safety outcomes with MT or bMM among patients with mELVO was also conducted. Data were analyzed between 2013 and 2017. Study Selection: We identified studies that enrolled patients with stroke (within 24 hours of symptom onset) with mELVO treated with MT or bMM. Main Outcomes and Measures: Efficacy outcomes included 3-month favorable functional outcome and 3-month functional independence that were defined as modified Rankin Scale scores of 0 to 1 and 0 to 2, respectively. Safety outcomes included 3-month mortality and symptomatic and asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Results: We evaluated a total of 251 patients with mELVO who were treated with MT (n = 138; 65 women; mean age, 65.2 years; median NIHSS score, 4; interquartile range [IQR], 3-5) or bMM (n = 113; 51 women; mean age, 64.8; median NIHSS score, 3; interquartile range [IQR], 2-4). The rate of asymptomatic ICH was lower in bMM (4.6% vs 17.5%; P =.002), while the rate of 3-month FI (after imputation of missing follow-up evaluations) was lower in MT (77.4% vs 88.5%; P =.02). The 2 groups did not differ in any other efficacy or safety outcomes. In multivariable analyses, MT was associated with higher odds of asymptomatic ICH (odds ratio [OR], 11.07; 95% CI, 1.31-93.53; P =.03). In the meta-analysis of 4 studies (843 patients), MT was associated with higher odds of symptomatic ICH in unadjusted analyses (OR, 5.52; 95% CI, 1.91-15.49; P =.002; I2 = 0%). This association did not retain its significance in adjusted analyses including 2 studies (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 0.49-8.63; P =.32; I2 = 0%). The meta-analysis did not document any other independent associations between treatment groups and safety or efficacy outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Our multicenter study coupled with the meta-analysis suggests similar outcomes of MT and bMM in patients with stroke with mELVO, but no conclusions about treatment effect can be made. The clinical equipoise can further be resolved by a randomized clinical trial.
|
|
| 6. |
- Katsanos, Aristeidis H, et al.
(författare)
-
Blood Pressure After Endovascular Thrombectomy and Outcomes in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: An Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis.
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Neurology. - 1526-632X. ; 98:3, s. e291-e301
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To explore the association between blood pressure (BP) levels after endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) and the clinical outcomes of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO).A study was eligible if it enrolled AIS patients older than 18 years, with an LVO treated with either successful or unsuccessful EVT, and provided either individual or mean 24-hour systolic BP values after the end of the EVT procedure. Individual patient data from all studies were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed-effects model.A total of 5874 patients (mean age: 69±14 years, 50% women, median NIHSS on admission: 16) from 7 published studies were included. Increasing mean systolic BP levels per 10 mm Hg during the first 24 hours after the end of the EVT were associated with a lower odds of functional improvement (unadjusted common OR=0.82, 95%CI:0.80-0.85; adjusted common OR=0.88, 95%CI:0.84-0.93) and modified Ranking Scale score≤2 (unadjusted OR=0.82, 95%CI:0.79-0.85; adjusted OR=0.87, 95%CI:0.82-0.93), and a higher odds of all-cause mortality (unadjusted OR=1.18, 95%CI:1.13-1.24; adjusted OR=1.15, 95%CI:1.06-1.23) at 3 months. Higher 24-hour mean systolic BP levels were also associated with an increased likelihood of early neurological deterioration (unadjusted OR=1.14, 95%CI:1.07-1.21; adjusted OR=1.14, 95%CI:1.03-1.24) and a higher odds of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (unadjusted OR=1.20, 95%CI:1.09-1.29; adjusted OR=1.20, 95%CI:1.03-1.38) after EVT.Increased mean systolic BP levels in the first 24 hours after EVT are independently associated with a higher odds of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, early neurological deterioration, three-month mortality, and worse three-month functional outcomes.
|
|
