@article{BenKraiemSauerNorwigetal.2021,
  author    = {Ben-Kraiem, Adel and Sauer, Reine-Solange and Norwig, Carla and Popp, Maria and Bettenhausen, Anna-Lena and Atalla, Mariam Sobhy and Brack, Alexander and Blum, Robert and Doppler, Kathrin and Rittner, Heike Lydia},
  title     = {Selective blood-nerve barrier leakiness with claudin-1 and vessel-associated macrophage loss in diabetic polyneuropathy},
  series = {Journal of Molecular Medicine},
  volume    = {99},
  journal   = {Journal of Molecular Medicine},
  number    = {9},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00109-021-02091-1},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-265237},
  pages     = {1237-1250},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) is the most common complication in diabetes and can be painful in up to 26\% of all diabetic patients. Peripheral nerves are shielded by the blood-nerve barrier (BNB) consisting of the perineurium and endoneurial vessels. So far, there are conflicting results regarding the role and function of the BNB in the pathophysiology of DPN. In this study, we analyzed the spatiotemporal tight junction protein profile, barrier permeability, and vessel-associated macrophages in Wistar rats with streptozotocin-induced DPN. In these rats, mechanical hypersensitivity developed after 2 weeks and loss of motor function after 8 weeks, while the BNB and the blood-DRG barrier were leakier for small, but not for large molecules after 8 weeks only. The blood-spinal cord barrier remained sealed throughout the observation period. No gross changes in tight junction protein or cytokine expression were observed in all barriers to blood. However, expression of Cldn1 mRNA in perineurium was specifically downregulated in conjunction with weaker vessel-associated macrophage shielding of the BNB. Our results underline the role of specific tight junction proteins and BNB breakdown in DPN maintenance and differentiate DPN from traumatic nerve injury. Targeting claudins and sealing the BNB could stabilize pain and prevent further nerve damage.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HolzmannLittigBraunischKrankeetal.2021,
  author    = {Holzmann-Littig, Christopher and Braunisch, Matthias Christoph and Kranke, Peter and Popp, Maria and Seeber, Christian and Fichtner, Falk and Littig, Bianca and Carbajo-Lozoya, Javier and Allwang, Christine and Frank, Tamara and Meerpohl, Joerg Johannes and Haller, Bernhard and Schmaderer, Christoph},
  title     = {COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and hesitancy among healthcare workers in germany},
  series = {Vaccines},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Vaccines},
  number    = {7},
  issn      = {2076-393X},
  doi       = {10.3390/vaccines9070777},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-242627},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Vaccination hesitancy is a threat to herd immunity. Healthcare workers (HCWs) play a key role in promoting Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in the general population. We therefore aimed to provide data on COVID-19 vaccination acceptance/hesitancy among German HCWs. For this exploratory, cross-sectional study, an online survey was conducted in February 2021. The survey included 54 items on demographics; previous vaccination behavior; trust in vaccines, physicians, the pharmaceutical industry and health politics; fear of adverse effects; assumptions regarding the consequences of COVID-19; knowledge about vaccines; and information seeking behavior. Odds ratios with 95\% confidence intervals were calculated and chi-square tests were performed. Four thousand five hundred surveys were analyzed. The overall vaccination acceptance was 91.7\%. The age group ≤20 years showed the lowest vaccination acceptance. Factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were lack of trust in authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Attitudes among acquaintances were associated with vaccination hesitancy too. Participants with vaccination hesitancy more often obtained information about COVID-19 vaccines via messenger services or online video platforms and underperformed in the knowledge test. We found high acceptance amongst German HCWs. Several factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were identified which could be targeted in HCW vaccination campaigns.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ReisPoppSchmidetal.2021,
  author    = {Reis, Stefanie and Popp, Maria and Schmid, Benedikt and Stegemann, Miriam and Metzendorf, Maria-Inti and Kranke, Peter and Meybohm, Patrick and Weibel, Stephanie},
  title     = {Safety and efficacy of intermediate- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation for hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis},
  series = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  number    = {1},
  issn      = {2077-0383},
  doi       = {10.3390/jcm11010057},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-252285},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background: COVID-19 patients are at high thrombotic risk. The safety and efficacy of different anticoagulation regimens in COVID-19 patients remain unclear. Methods: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intermediate- or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 irrespective of disease severity. To assess efficacy and safety, we meta-analysed data for all-cause mortality, clinical status, thrombotic event or death, and major bleedings. Results: Eight RCTs, including 5580 patients, were identified, with two comparing intermediate- and six therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis. Intermediate-dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect on any thrombotic event or death (RR 1.03, 95\% CI 0.86-1.24), but may increase major bleedings (RR 1.48, 95\% CI 0.53-4.15) in moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may decrease any thrombotic event or death in patients with moderate COVID-19 (RR 0.64, 95\% CI 0.38-1.07), but may have little or no effect in patients with severe disease (RR 0.98, 95\% CI 0.86-1.12). The risk of major bleedings may increase independent of disease severity (RR 1.78, 95\% CI 1.15-2.74). Conclusions: Certainty of evidence is still low. Moderately affected COVID-19 patients may benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, but the risk for bleeding is increased.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RiemerKrankeHelfetal.2021,
  author    = {Riemer, Manuel and Kranke, Peter and Helf, Antonia and Mayer, Debora and Popp, Maria and Schlesinger, Tobias and Meybohm, Patrick and Weibel, Stephanie},
  title     = {Trial registration and selective outcome reporting in 585 clinical trials investigating drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting},
  series = {BMC Anesthesiology},
  volume    = {21},
  journal   = {BMC Anesthesiology},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12871-021-01464-w},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-265518},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background: Selective outcome reporting in clinical trials introduces bias in the body of evidence distorting clinical decision making. Trial registration aims to prevent this bias and is suggested by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) since 2004. Methods: The 585 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1965 and 2017 that were included in a recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting were selected. In a retrospective study, we assessed trial registration and selective outcome reporting by comparing study publications with their registered protocols according to the 'Cochrane Risk of bias' assessment tool 1.0. Results: In the Cochrane review, the first study which referred to a registered trial protocol was published in 2004. Of all 585 trials included in the Cochrane review, 334 RCTs were published in 2004 or later, of which only 22\% (75/334) were registered. Among the registered trials, 36\% (27/75) were pro- and 64\% (48/75) were retrospectively registered. 41\% (11/27) of the prospectively registered trials were free of selective outcome reporting bias, 22\% (6/27) were incompletely registered and assessed as unclear risk, and 37\% (10/27) were assessed as high risk. Major outcome discrepancies between registered and published high risk trials were a change from the registered primary to a published secondary outcome (32\%), a new primary outcome (26\%), and different outcome assessment times (26\%). Among trials with high risk of selective outcome reporting 80\% favoured at least one statistically significant result. Registered trials were assessed more often as 'overall low risk of bias' compared to non-registered trials (64\% vs 28\%). Conclusions: In 2017, 13 years after the ICMJE declared prospective protocol registration a necessity for reliable clinical studies, the frequency and quality of trial registration in the field of PONV is very poor. Selective outcome reporting reduces trustworthiness in findings of clinical trials. Investigators and clinicians should be aware that only following a properly registered protocol and transparently reporting of predefined outcomes, regardless of the direction and significance of the result, will ultimately strengthen the body of evidence in the field of PONV research in the future.},
  language  = {en}
}