It is evident from recent issues of journals like Psychometrika and Applied Psychological Measurement that the Dutch contribution to the development of the area of measurement and scaling is considerable. In the first part of this paper, we try to answer the question how this could happen. In the early development De Groot in Amsterdam and Van de Geer in Leiden created an academic climate that made it possible for many researchers to develop their skills. Some other possible reasons are sketched for the flourishing of this area in the Netherlands, but it is difficult to assess which reasons were most important. In the second part of the paper, we analyze the international impact of the Dutch contribution by a citation analysis in four fields of measurement and scaling: factor analysis, test theory including item response theory, latent class analysis, and optimal scaling and multidimensional scaling. It appears that Dutch researchers not only publish a lot, but also that the impact of their publications is at the same level as publications produced world‐wide.
In agricultural ecosystems, pest insects, pathogens, and reduced soil fertility pose major challenges to crop productivity and are responsible for significant yield losses worldwide. Management of belowground pests and diseases remains particularly challenging due to the complex nature of the soil and the limited reach of conventional agrochemicals. Boosting the presence of beneficial rhizosphere organisms is a potentially sustainable alternative and may help to optimize crop health and productivity. Field application of single beneficial soil organisms has shown satisfactory results under optimal conditions. This might be further enhanced by combining multiple beneficial soil organisms, but this remains poorly investigated. Here, we inoculated wheat plots with combinations of three beneficial soil organisms that have different rhizosphere functions and studied their effects on crop performance. Plant beneficial Pseudomonas bacteria, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), and entomopathogenic nematodes (EPN), were inoculated individually or in combinations at seeding, and their effects on plant performance were evaluated throughout the season. We used traditional and molecular identification tools to monitor their persistence over the cropping season in augmented and control treatments, and to estimate the possible displacement of native populations. In three separate trials, beneficial soil organisms were successfully introduced into the native populations and readily survived the field conditions. Various Pseudomonas, mycorrhiza, and nematode treatments improved plant health and productivity, while their combinations provided no significant additive or synergistic benefits compared to when applied alone. EPN application temporarily displaced some of the native EPN, but had no significant long-term effect on the associated food web. The strongest positive effect on wheat survival was observed for Pseudomonas and AMF during a season with heavy natural infestation by the frit fly, Oscinella frit, a major pest of cereals. Hence, beneficial impacts differed between the beneficial soil organisms and were most evident for plants under biotic stress. Overall, our findings indicate that in wheat production under the test conditions the three beneficial soil organisms can establish nicely and are compatible, but their combined application provides no additional benefits. Further studies are required, also in other cropping systems, to fine-tune the functional interactions among beneficial soil organisms, crops, and the environment. ; The project was funded by grants of the Swiss National Research Program 68 on the "Sustainable Use of Soil as a Resource" from the Swiss National Science Foundation (406840_143065 awarded to TT and FM, 406840_143141 awarded to CK and MM, 406840_143097 to MvdH, OF, and WC). GJ was supported by an assistantship from the University of Neuchâtel, and a Swiss Government Excellence Scholarships supported XC for Foreign Scholars. The Government of Portugal supports RCH with an Investigator Program award (IF/00552/2014). ; Peer reviewed
In: Horwich , A , Babjuk , M , Bellmunt , J , Bruins , H M , de Reijke , T M , de Santis , M , Gillessen , S , James , N , Maclennan , S , Palou , J , Powles , T , Ribal , M J , Shariat , S F , van der Kwast , T , Xylinas , E , Agarwal , N , Arends , T , Bamias , A , Birtle , A , Black , P C , Bochner , B H , Bolla , M , Boormans , J L , Bossi , A , Briganti , A , Brummelhuis , I , Burger , M , Castellano , D , Cathomas , R , Chiti , A , Choudhury , A , Compérat , E , Crabb , S , Culine , S , de Bari , B , DeBlok , W , de Visschere , P J L , Decaestecker , K , Dimitropoulos , K , Dominguez-Escrig , J L , Fanti , S , Fonteyne , V , Frydenberg , M , Futterer , J J , Gakis , G , Geavlete , B , Gontero , P , Grubmüller , B , Hafeez , S , Hansel , D E , Hartmann , A , Hayne , D , Henry , A M , Hernandez , V , Herr , H , Herrmann , K , Hoskin , P , Huguet , J , Jereczek-Fossa , B A , Jones , R , Kamat , A M , Khoo , V , Kiltie , A E , Krege , S , Ladoire , S , Lara , P C , Leliveld , A , Linares-Espinós , E , Løgager , V , Lorch , A , Loriot , Y , Meijer , R , Carmen Mir , M , Moschini , M , Mostafid , H , Müller , A C , Müller , C R , N'Dow , J , Necchi , A , Neuzillet , Y , Oddens , J R , Oldenburg , J , Osanto , S , Oyen , W J G , Pacheco-Figueiredo , L , Pappot , H , Patel , M I , Pieters , B R , Plass , K , Remzi , M , Retz , M , Richenberg , J , Rink , M , Roghmann , F , Rosenberg , J E , Rouprêt , M , Rouvière , O , Salembier , C , Salminen , A , Sargos , P , Sengupta , S , Sherif , A , Smeenk , R J , Smits , A , Stenzl , A , Thalmann , G N , Tombal , B , Turkbey , B , Vahr Lauridsen , S , Valdagni , R , van der Heijden , A G , van Poppel , H , Vartolomei , M D , Veskimäe , E , Vilaseca , A , Vives Rivera , F A , Wiegel , T , Wiklund , P , Williams , A , Zigeuner , R & Witjes , J A 2019 , ' EAU–ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer—an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort: under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees ' , Annals of Oncology , vol. 30 , no. 11 , pp. 1697-1727 . https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz296
Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1–3 (disagree), 4–6 (equivocal), 7–9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach.
BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach.