From the article: The ‘Axiomatic Design Methodology’ uses ‘Axioms’ that cannot be proven nor derived from physical phenomena. The axioms serve as guidelines for the design process of products and systems. The latest contribution was the addition of the ‘Complexity Axiom’ in 1999. However, the underlying theory of complexity did not get much traction by designers and their managers yet. It emphasises difficulties in the design, not primarily focussing on solutions. The ‘Theory of Complexity’ is converted to a ‘Theory of Maturity’ in this paper. It is supported with a graphical way to plot maturity as it develops. It visualises the results in a way that can be understood by all entities in a company, engineers, managers, and executives. Understanding the maturity of a system enables selection of the right measures to control it. Visualisation enables communication between the interacting parties. If successful development trajectories are understood, eventually from earlier experience, even better corrective actions can be applied. The method appears an affirmative way to graphically represent progression in design, thus presenting advances in a positive context. Though positively presented, it is not the case that the method hides problems; presumed and legitimate project progression can be quite different, which challenges the designer to understand the process. In this way, the method sends out a continuous warning to stay critical on design choices made.
Standard SARS-CoV-2 testing protocols using nasopharyngeal/throat (NP/T) swabs are invasive and require trained medical staff for reliable sampling. In addition, it has been shown that PCR is more sensitive as compared to antigen-based tests. Here we describe the analytical and clinical evaluation of our in-house RNA extraction-free saliva-based molecular assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Analytical sensitivity of the test was equal to the sensitivity obtained in other Dutch diagnostic laboratories that process NP/T swabs. In this study, 955 individuals participated and provided NP/T swabs for routine molecular analysis (with RNA extraction) and saliva for comparison. Our RT-qPCR resulted in a sensitivity of 82,86% and a specificity of 98,94% compared to the gold standard. A false-negative ratio of 1,9% was found. The SARS-CoV-2 detection workflow described here enables easy, economical, and reliable saliva processing, useful for repeated testing of individuals.
LINK
Background: Peer review is at the heart of the scientific process. With the advent of digitisation, journals started to offer electronic articles or publishing online only. A new philosophy regarding the peer review process found its way into academia: the open peer review. Open peer review as practiced by BioMed Central (BMC) is a type of peer review where the names of authors and reviewers are disclosed and reviewer comments are published alongside the article. A number of articles have been published to assess peer reviews using quantitative research. However, no studies exist that used qualitative methods to analyse the content of reviewers’ comments. Methods: A focused mapping review and synthesis (FMRS) was undertaken of manuscripts reporting qualitative research submitted to BMC open access journals from 1 January – 31 March 2018. Free-text reviewer comments were extracted from peer review reports using a 77-item classification system organised according to three key dimensions that represented common themes and sub-themes. A two stage analysis process was employed. First, frequency counts were undertaken that allowed revealing patterns across themes/sub-themes. Second, thematic analysis was conducted on selected themes of the narrative portion of reviewer reports. Results: A total of 107 manuscripts submitted to nine open-access journals were included in the FMRS. The frequency analysis revealed that among the 30 most frequently employed themes “writing criteria” (dimension II) is the top ranking theme, followed by comments in relation to the “methods” (dimension I). Besides that, some results suggest an underlying quantitative mindset of reviewers. Results are compared and contrasted in relation to established reporting guidelines for qualitative research to inform reviewers and authors of frequent feedback offered to enhance the quality of manuscripts. Conclusions: This FMRS has highlighted some important issues that hold lessons for authors, reviewers and editors. We suggest modifying the current reporting guidelines by including a further item called “Degree of data transformation” to prompt authors and reviewers to make a judgment about the appropriateness of the degree of data transformation in relation to the chosen analysis method. Besides, we suggest that completion of a reporting checklist on submission becomes a requirement.
MULTIFILE
