| 1. |
- Sodergren, Erica, et al.
(författare)
-
The genome of the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus.
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Science. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 1095-9203 .- 0036-8075. ; 314:5801, s. 941-52
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We report the sequence and analysis of the 814-megabase genome of the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus, a model for developmental and systems biology. The sequencing strategy combined whole-genome shotgun and bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) sequences. This use of BAC clones, aided by a pooling strategy, overcame difficulties associated with high heterozygosity of the genome. The genome encodes about 23,300 genes, including many previously thought to be vertebrate innovations or known only outside the deuterostomes. This echinoderm genome provides an evolutionary outgroup for the chordates and yields insights into the evolution of deuterostomes.
|
|
| 2. |
- Ceric, Ameldina, et al.
(författare)
-
Effect of level of sedation on outcomes in critically ill adult patients : a systematic review of clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
- 2024
-
Ingår i: EClinicalMedicine. - 2589-5370. ; 71
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Sedation is routinely administered to critically ill patients to alleviate anxiety, discomfort, and patient-ventilator asynchrony. However, it must be balanced against risks such as delirium and prolonged intensive care stays. This study aimed to investigate the effects of different levels of sedation in critically ill adults. Methods: Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomised clinical trials including critically ill adults admitted to the intensive care unit. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Web of Science were searched from their inception to 13 June 2023. Risks of bias were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Aggregate data were synthesised with meta-analyses and TSA, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42023386960. Findings: Fifteen trials randomising 4352 patients were included, of which 13 were assessed high risk of bias. Meta-analyses comparing lighter to deeper sedation showed no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83–1.06; p = 0.28; 15 trials; moderate certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 0.99, CI 0.92–1.06; p = 0.80; 15 trials; moderate certainty evidence), or delirium (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94–1.09; p = 0.78; 11 trials; moderate certainty evidence). TSA showed that when assessing mortality, a relative risk reduction of 16% or more between the compared interventions could be rejected. Interpretation: The level of sedation has not been shown to affect the risks of death, delirium, and other serious adverse events in critically ill adult patients. While TSA suggests that additional trials are unlikely to significantly change the conclusion of the meta-analyses, the certainty of evidence was moderate. This suggests a need for future high-quality studies with higher methodological rigor. Funding: None.
|
|
| 3. |
- Ceric, Ameldina, et al.
(författare)
-
Level of sedation in critically ill adult patients : a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 12:9
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction It is standard of care to provide sedation to critically ill patients to reduce anxiety, discomfort and promote tolerance of mechanical ventilation. Given that sedatives can have differing effects based on a variety of patient and pharmacological characteristics, treatment approaches are largely based on targeting the level of sedation. The benefits of differing levels of sedation must be balanced against potential adverse effects including haemodynamic instability, causing delirium, delaying awakening and prolonging the time of mechanical ventilation and intensive care stay. This systematic review with meta-analysis aims to investigate the current evidence and compare the effects of differing sedation levels in adult critically ill patients. Methods and analyses We will conduct a systematic review based on searches of preidentified major medical databases (eg, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify trials meeting inclusion criteria. We will include randomised clinical trials comparing any degree of sedation with no sedation and lighter sedation with deeper sedation for critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit. We will include aggregate data meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses. Risk of bias will be assessed with domains based on the Cochrane risk of bias tool. An eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed using Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Ethics and dissemination No formal approval or review of ethics is required as individual patient data will not be included. This systematic review has the potential to highlight (1) whether one should believe sedation to be beneficial, harmful or neither in critically ill adults; (2) the existing knowledge gaps and (3) whether the recommendations from guidelines and daily clinical practice are supported by current evidence. These results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
|
|
