Formula for converting median and interquartile range (IQR) into mean and standard deviation (SD).

Abbreviations: GFR, glomerular filtration rate; MDRD, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease; CKD-EPI, Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration; CI, confidence interval; IQR, interquartile range.Performance of bias, precision and accuracy between measured GFR and estimated GFR in the validation data set.

Median and interquartile range for R2 and l and s parameters from three two-parameter models, fitted to data on group median (i.e., fit to median IP) and individual level in physical effort conditions.

Supplementary figure 1Rank abundance distributions for habitats at three taxonomic levelsSuppl_fig_1.pdfSupplementary figure 2Evenness and species richness of the four habitats at three taxonomic levels.Suppl_fig_2.pdfSupplementary figure 3Distribution of p-values from Mantel test for Spearman correlation between dissimilarity matrices representing different taxonomic and numerical levels. A-C, Correlation between taxonomic levels at different numerical resolutions. D-F, Correlation between proportional abundance data and higher levels of numerical transformation. Filled points represent median p-values across 1000 subsampling iterations, empty points are outliers that lie beyond 1.5 times the interquartile range from the upper quartile.Suppl_fig_3.pdfSupplementary figure 4NMDS ordination of a double-standardized subsample of the total dataset comparing individual habitats along the depth- and salinity gradient for species and families using proportional abundances and presence/absence ...

Objectives: To develop and pilot a tool to measure and improve pharmaceutical companies' clinical trial data sharing policies and practices. Design: Cross sectional descriptive analysis. Setting: Large pharmaceutical companies with novel drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2015. Data sources: Data sharing measures were adapted from 10 prominent data sharing guidelines from expert bodies and refined through a multi-stakeholder deliberative process engaging patients, industry, academics, regulators, and others. Data sharing practices and policies were assessed using data from ClinicalTrials.gov, Drugs@FDA, corporate websites, data sharing platforms and registries (eg, the Yale Open Data Access (YODA) Project and Clinical Study Data Request (CSDR)), and personal communication with drug companies. Main outcome measures: Company level, multicomponent measure of accessibility of participant level clinical trial data (eg, analysis ready dataset and metadata); drug and trial level measures of registration, results reporting, and publication; company level overall transparency rankings; and feasibility of the measures and ranking tool to improve company data sharing policies and practices. Results: Only 25% of large pharmaceutical companies fully met the data sharing measure. The median company data sharing score was 63% (interquartile range 58-85%). Given feedback and a chance to improve their policies to meet this measure, three companies made amendments, raising the percentage of companies in full compliance to 33% and the median company data sharing score to 80% (73-100%). The most common reasons companies did not initially satisfy the data sharing measure were failure to share data by the specified deadline (75%) and failure to report the number and outcome of their data requests. Across new drug applications, a median of 100% (interquartile range 91-100%) of trials in patients were registered, 65% (36-96%) reported results, 45% (30-84%) were published, and 95% (69-100%) were publicly available in some form by six months after FDA drug approval. When examining results on the drug level, less than half (42%) of reviewed drugs had results for all their new drug applications trials in patients publicly available in some form by six months after FDA approval. Conclusions: It was feasible to develop a tool to measure data sharing policies and practices among large companies and have an impact in improving company practices. Among large companies, 25% made participant level trial data accessible to external investigators for new drug approvals in accordance with the current study's measures; this proportion improved to 33% after applying the ranking tool. Other measures of trial transparency were higher. Some companies, however, have substantial room for improvement on transparency and data sharing of clinical trials.

BackgroundRheumatic and musculoskeletal disorders (RMDs) are associated with cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), with hypertension being the most common. We aimed to determine the prevalence of high blood pressure (HBP), awareness, treatment, and blood pressure control among patients with RMDs seen in a Rheumatology clinic in Uganda.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study at the Rheumatology Clinic of Mulago National Referral Hospital (MNRH), Kampala, Uganda. Socio-demographic, clinical characteristics and anthropometric data were collected. Multivariable logistic regression was performed using STATA 16 to determine factors associated with HBP in patients with RMDs.ResultsA total of 100 participants were enrolled. Of these, majority were female (84%, n = 84) with mean age of 52.1 (standard deviation: 13.8) years and median body mass index of 28 kg/m2 (interquartile range (IQR): 24.8 kg/m2–32.9 kg/m2). The prevalence of HBP was 61% (n = 61, 95% CI: 51.5–70.5), with the majority (77%, n = 47, 95% CI: 66.5–87.6) being aware they had HTN. The prevalence of HTN was 47% (n = 47, 37.2–56.8), and none had it under control. Factors independently associated with HBP were age 46-55years (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR): 2.5, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06–5.95), 56–65 years (aPR: 2.6, 95% CI: 1.09–6.15), >65 years (aPR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.02–6.00), obesity (aPR: 3.7, 95% CI: 1.79–7.52), overweight (aPR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.29–5.77).ConclusionThere was a high burden of HBP among people with RMDs in Uganda with poor blood pressure control, associated with high BMI and increasing age. There is a need for further assessment of the RMD specific drivers of HBP and meticulous follow up of patients with RMDs.

Data is reported as median (inter-quartile range) unless otherwise specified. WPS = Worthing physiological score. IQR = inter-quartile range.

IQR values are indicated in brackets. Rows A and B indicate either intra-individual comparisons (A) or inter-individual comparisons (B).

Studies conflict on the significance of burn-induced coagulopathy. We posit that burn-induced coagulopathy is associated with injury severity in burns. Our purpose was to characterize coagulopathy profiles in burns and determine relationships between % total burn surface area (TBSA) burned and coagulopathy using the International Normalized Ratio (INR). Burned patients with INR values were identified in the TriNetX database and analyzed by %TBSA burned. Patients with history of transfusions, chronic hepatic failure, and those on anticoagulant medications were excluded. Interquartile ranges for INR in the burned study population were 1.2 (1.0–1.4). An INR of ≥ 1.5 was used to represent those with burn-induced coagulopathy as it fell outside the 3rd quartile. The population was stratified into subgroups using INR levels

The risk for occurrence of venous thromboembolism according to quartiles of total cholesterol variability.