Explore the vast range of titles available.

The continuing global expansion of electricity networks increases the risk of bird collisions with power lines. Several field studies have demonstrated that this risk can be reduced by marking lines with flight diverters. A before‐after control‐impact (BACI) design is currently the suggested approach for evaluating the effectiveness of these diverters and is generally assumed to give unbiased results. Using systematic flight survey data, we demonstrate that the assumptions underlying the BACI approach are frequently violated, leading to biased effectiveness estimates. We present an alternative field and statistical design in which the number of bird strike victims is directly related to bird flight intensity (“fusion design”), instead of estimating it indirectly using a control site. The presented design is validated based on simulations. We demonstrate that the presented method is unbiased and shows an approximately 3‐fold higher statistical power compared with BACI, even under ideal/unbiased data conditions, with similar field‐experimental effort. Moreover, this approach can provide a direct analysis of bird reactions/collisions, estimation of collision rates, and the possibility of conducting the required fieldwork within a single season. Our presented method can be used to standardize and improve future studies on diverter effectiveness, for example, by supporting the acquisition of a more detailed picture of species‐, diverter type‐, and habitat‐specific estimates. We compare and extend methods to analyze bird collision frequency at power lines. We present a new field and statistical approach (“fusion approach”) and demonstrate that this new method is unbiased and shows an approximately 3‐fold higher statistical power compared with previous methods.

Purpose To benchmark palliative care practices in neurooncology centers across Germany, evaluating the variability in palliative care integration, timing, and involvement in tumor board discussions. This study aims to identify gaps in care and contribute to the discourse on optimal palliative care strategies. Methods A survey targeting both German Cancer Society-certified and non-certified university neurooncology centers was conducted to explore palliative care frameworks and practices for neurooncological patients. The survey included questions on palliative care department availability, involvement in tumor boards, timing of palliative care integration, and use of standardized screening tools for assessing palliative burden and psycho-oncological distress. Results Of 57 centers contacted, 46 responded (81% response rate). Results indicate a dedicated palliative care department in 76.1% of centers, with palliative specialists participating in tumor board discussions at 34.8% of centers. Variability was noted in the initiation of palliative care, with early integration at the diagnosis stage in only 30.4% of centers. The survey highlighted a significant lack of standardized spiritual care assessments and minimal use of advanced care planning. Discrepancies were observed in the documentation and treatment of palliative care symptoms and social complaints, underscoring the need for comprehensive care approaches. Conclusion The study highlights a diverse landscape of palliative care provision within German neurooncology centers, underscoring the need for more standardized practices and early integration of palliative care. It suggests the necessity for standardized protocols and guidelines to enhance palliative care's quality and uniformity, ultimately improving patient-centered care in neurooncology.