Clustered versus catastrophic global vertebrate declines.

Recent analyses have reported catastrophic global declines in vertebrate populations1,2. However, the distillation of many trends into a global mean index obscures the variation that can inform conservation measures and can be sensitive to analytical decisions. For example, previous analyses have estimated a mean vertebrate decline of more than 50% since 1970 (Living Planet Index2). Here we show, however, that this estimate is driven by less than 3% of vertebrate populations; if these extremely declining populations are excluded, the global trend switches to an increase. The sensitivity of global mean trends to outliers suggests that more informative indices are needed. We propose an alternative approach, which identifies clusters of extreme decline (or increase) that differ statistically from the majority of population trends. We show that, of taxonomic-geographic systems in the Living Planet Index, 16 systems contain clusters of extreme decline (comprising around 1% of populations; these extreme declines occur disproportionately in larger animals) and 7 contain extreme increases (around 0.4% of populations). The remaining 98.6% of populations across all systems showed no mean global trend. However, when analysed separately, three systems were declining strongly with high certainty (all in the Indo-Pacific region) and seven were declining strongly but with less certainty (mostly reptile and amphibian groups). Accounting for extreme clusters fundamentally alters the interpretation of global vertebrate trends and should be used to help to prioritize conservation efforts.

The Determination of Diabetes Utilities, Costs, and Effects Model: A Cost-Utility Tool Using Patient-Level Microsimulation to Evaluate Sensor-Based Glucose Monitoring Systems in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: Comparative Validation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy and validity of the Determination of Diabetes Utilities, Costs, and Effects (DEDUCE) model, a Microsoft-Excel-based tool for evaluating diabetes interventions for type 1 and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: The DEDUCE model is a patient-level microsimulation, with complications predicted based on the Sheffield and Risk Equations for Complications Of type 2 diabetes models for type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. For this tool to be useful, it must be validated to ensure that its complication predictions are accurate. Internal, external, and cross-validation was assessed by populating the DEDUCE model with the baseline characteristics and treatment effects reported in clinical trials used in the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Mount Hood Diabetes Challenges. Results from the DEDUCE model were evaluated against clinical results and previously validated models via mean absolute percentage error or percentage error. RESULTS: The DEDUCE model performed favorably, predicting key outcomes, including cardiovascular disease in type 1 diabetes and all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes. The model performed well against other models. In the Mount Hood 9 Challenge comparison, error was below the mean reported from comparator models for several outcomes, particularly for hazard ratios. CONCLUSIONS: The DEDUCE model predicts diabetes-related complications from trials and studies well when compared with previously validated models. The model may serve as a useful tool for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of diabetes technologies.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Public legitimacy of healthcare resource allocation committees: lessons learned from assessing an Israeli case study.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Insurance Law enacted in 1995 stipulates a list of health services to which all Israeli residents are entitled. For the past 20 years, the list has been updated annually, as a function of a predetermined budget, according to recommendations from the Public National Advisory Committee (PNAC), which evaluates and prioritizes candidate technologies. We assessed the legitimacy of this resource-allocation process as reflected in Israeli public discourse and its congruence with the accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework. METHODS: A qualitative analysis of public discourse documents (articles in the print media, court rulings and parliamentary debates (N = 119) was conducted to assess the perceived legitimacy by the Israeli public of the PNAC. Further content analysis of these documents and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (N = 70) revealed the mainstays and threats to its legitimacy. Based on these data sources, on governmental documents specifying PNAC's procedures, and on data from participant observations, we assessed its congruence with A4R's four conditions: publicity, relevance, revision and appeals, regulation. RESULTS: The PNAC enjoys ongoing support for its legitimacy in Israeli public discourse, which stem from its perceived professional focus and transparency. These strengths are consistent with the A4R's emphasis on the publicity and the relevance conditions. The three major threats to PNAC's legitimacy pertain to: (1) the composition of the committee; (2) its operating procedures; (3) its guiding principles. These perceived shortcomings are also consistent with incongruencies between PNAC's work model and A4R. These findings thus further support the empirical validity of the A4R. CONCLUSION: The analysis of the fit between the PNAC and A4R points to refinements in all four conditions that could make the A4R a more precise evaluative framework. Concurrently, it highlights areas that the PNAC should improve to increase its legitimacy, such as incorporating cost-effectiveness analyses and including patient representatives in the decision-making process. Hebrew and Arabic abstracts for this article are available as an additional file.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals, as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Evolutionary legacies in contemporary tetrapod imperilment.

The Tree of Life will be irrevocably reshaped as anthropogenic extinctions continue to unfold. Theory suggests that lineage evolutionary dynamics, such as age since origination, historical extinction filters and speciation rates, have influenced ancient extinction patterns - but whether these factors also contribute to modern extinction risk is largely unknown. We examine evolutionary legacies in contemporary extinction risk for over 4000 genera, representing ~30,000 species, from the major tetrapod groups: amphibians, birds, turtles and crocodiles, squamate reptiles and mammals. We find consistent support for the hypothesis that extinction risk is elevated in lineages with higher recent speciation rates. We subsequently test, and find modest support for, a primary mechanism driving this pattern: that rapidly diversifying clades predominantly comprise range-restricted, and extinction-prone, species. These evolutionary patterns in current imperilment may have important consequences for how we manage the erosion of biological diversity across the Tree of Life.

Hydrothermal physiology and climate vulnerability in amphibians.

Concerns over the consequences of global climate change for biodiversity have spurred a renewed interest in organismal thermal physiology. However, temperature is only one of many environmental axes poised to change in the future. In particular, hydrologic regimes are also expected to shift concurrently with temperature in many regions, yet our understanding of how thermal and hydration physiology jointly affect performance and fitness is still limited for most taxonomic groups. Here, we investigated the relationship between functional performance, hydration state and temperature in three ecologically distinct amphibians, and compare how temperature and water loss can concurrently limit activity under current climate conditions. We found that performance was maintained across a broad range of hydration states in all three species, but then declines abruptly after a threshold of 20-30% mass loss. This rapid performance decline was accelerated when individuals were exposed to warmer temperatures. Combining our empirical hydrothermal performance curves with species-specific biophysical models, we estimated that dehydration can increase restrictions on species' activity by up to 60% compared to restriction by temperature alone. These results illustrate the importance of integrating species' hydration physiology into forecasts of climate vulnerability, as omitting this axis may significantly underestimate the effects of future climate change on Earth's biological diversity.

The impact of gender on early scientific publication and long-term career advancement in Israeli medical school graduates.

BACKGROUND: Many medical schools and residency programs incorporate research projects into their curriculum, however most remain unpublished. Little is known on the long-term effect of early-career publication, especially in female graduates. METHODS: We collected data on physicians 15-20 years after graduation (representing a mid-career point), and analysed data on early publication, publication volume and impact according to graduates' gender and professional characteristics. Physicians were divided into those who never published, early-publishers (EP) who published within 2 years of graduation and late-publishers (LP). We analysed and compared the demographics, publication volume, publication quality as well as current mid-career position. RESULTS: Of 532 physicians, 185 were EP (34.8%), 220 were LP (41.3%), 127 (23.9%) never published, 491 (92.2%) became specialists and 122 (22.3%) achieved managerial position. Of the 405 who published, the average number of publications was 20.3 ± 33.0, and median (IQR) 9(19). H-index was significantly higher in EP, males, surgical specialists, and those holding a managerial position. Male gender was associated with higher publication rate (OR = 1.742; 95% CI 1.193-2.544; P = 0.004). Using quantile regression, female gender was negatively associated with the number of publications in Q50-Q95. Surgical specialty and managerial position were positively associated with publications in Q25 to Q75 and early publication in Q25 and Q75. CONCLUSIONS: We found a strong association between EP and the number, impact, and quality of publications throughout their academic career. This study illuminates the need for further investigations into the causes of gender discrepancies. We should invest in support programs encouraging early high quality research projects for young physicians and female graduates.

Sex and Ethnic Disparities in Health-Related Outcomes Following Acute Myocardial Infarction in Israel.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are at increased risk for recurrent cardiac events and tend to use excessive healthcare services, thus resulting in increased costs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the disparities in healthcare resource utilization and costs throughout a decade following a non-fatal AMI according to sex and ethnicity groups in Israel. METHODS: A retrospective study included AMI patients hospitalized at Soroka University Medical Center during 2002-2012. Data were obtained from electronic medical records. Post-AMI annual length of hospital stay (LOS); number of visits to the emergency department (ED), primary care facilities, and outpatient consulting clinics; and costs were evaluated and compared according sex and ethnicity groups. RESULTS: A total of 7685 patients (mean age 65.3 ± 13.6 years) were analyzed: 56.8% Jewish males (JM), 26.6% Jewish females (JF), 12.4% Bedouin males (BM), and 4.2% Bedouin females (BF). During the up-to 10-years follow-up (median 5.8 years), adjusted odds ratios [AdjOR] for utilizations of hospital-associated services were highest among BF (1.628 for LOS; 1.629 for ED visits), whereas AdjOR for utilization of community services was lowest in BF (0.722 for primary clinic, 0.782 for ambulatory, and 0.827 for consultant visits), compared with JM. The total cost of BF was highest among the study groups (AdjOR = 1.589, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term use of hospital-associated healthcare services and total costs were higher among Bedouins (especially BF), whereas utilization of ambulatory services was lower in these groups. Culturally and economically sensitive programs optimizing healthcare resources utilization and costs is warranted.

Ecological constraints associated with genome size across salamander lineages.

Salamanders have some of the largest, and most variable, genome sizes among the vertebrates. Larger genomes have been associated with larger cell sizes, lower metabolic rates, and longer embryonic and larval durations in many different taxonomic groups. These life-history traits are often important for dictating fitness under different environmental conditions, suggesting that a species' genome size may have the potential to constrain its ecological distribution. We test how genome size varies with the ephemerality of larval habitat across the salamanders, predicting that species with larger genomes will be constrained to more permanent habitats that permit slower development, while species with smaller genomes will be more broadly distributed across the gradient of habitat ephemerality. We found that salamanders with larger genomes are almost exclusively associated with permanent aquatic habitats. In addition, the evolutionary transition rate between permanent and ephemeral larval habitats is much higher in salamander lineages with smaller genome sizes. These patterns suggest that genome size may act as an evolutionary constraint on the ecological habitats of salamanders, restricting those species with large genomes and slower development to habitats with permanent sources of water.