Search

Introduction and hypothesis Obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) is a common urogynaecology presentation. This study compares two questionnaires, the electronic Personal Assessment Questionnaire (e-PAQ), used in urogynaecology clinics, with the ODS-Score (ODS-S), a simple validated scoring system used in colorectal clinics for diagnosing ODS, to identify patients with an ODS-S cut-off ≥9. Methods A total of 221 paired ODS-S and e-PAQ questionnaires were completed; 80 during the second trimester of pregnancy, 73 during the third and 68 post-natally, including women sustaining obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI). e-PAQ score and ODS-S were compared and Pearson’s correlation coefficient calculated. Areas under the curve assessed the diagnostic ability of e-PAQ scores to identify patients with ODS-S of ≥9. Results The e-PAQ and ODS-S scores showed a positive correlation in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, post-natally and following OASI. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated (0.77; p p p = 0.001 and 0.79; p 0.90 for all groups. Conclusions Comparison of e-PAQ evacuatory domain scores and ODS-S show a strong correlation, with an e-PAQ score of ≥33 promising for identifying women with an ODS score of ≥9, indicating ODS. This study will enable us to identify women during pregnancy and post-natally with ODS for whom early recognition and intervention may be beneficial.

ObjectivesIdentify strategies used in the design of recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and their associated Cochrane reviews where patients with the same gynaecological condition present with different symptoms.Study Design and SettingWe searched the Cochrane library (February 2022) for reviews in polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) and endometriosis. Reviews were included if the intervention was intended to treat all condition-specific symptoms. We restricted to trials published since 2012 to consider ‘current’ approaches. For each trial we recorded the number of potentially eligible participants excluded as a direct result of the chosen strategy. For each review we recorded the numbers of RCTs and participants excluded unnecessarily.ResultsThere were 89 distinct PCOS trials in 13 reviews, and 13 Endometriosis trials in 11 reviews. Most trials restricted their eligibility to participants with specific symptoms (55% PCOS, 46% endometriosis). The second most common strategy was to measure and analyse clinical outcomes that were not relevant to all participants (38% PCOS, 31% endometriosis). Reviews excluded 27% of trials based just on outcome data.ConclusionsCurrent gynaecological research is inefficient. Most trials either exclude patients who could benefit from treatment or measure outcomes not relevant to all participants.RegistrationPROSPERO (CRD42022334776)What is new?Key findingsOver a quarter of Cochrane reviews included in this review excluded trials based on the outcomes reported.Typically, recent randomised controlled trials in Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome and Endometriosis trials either exclude patients who could potentially benefit from the treatment given, or measure outcomes of no relevance to some participants.What this adds to what is known?Strategies developed that are employed in the design and measurement of outcomes in gynaecological trials.There are multiple sources of waste in the current gynaecological research landscape. The population of patients available is under-utilised by excluding patients based on the outcomes measured, or alternatively, researchers are measuring outcomes in patients who do not experience the associated symptom(s).What is the implication and what should change now?Gynaecological patients experience heterogeneity in their symptoms and therefore it is crucial to employ appropriate outcome measures in order to reduce research waste. Cochrane Reviews should include all trials which report outcomes that are relevant to the population of interest if the intervention under investigation is deemed to plausibly treat the associated symptom(s).

Objective Investigate feasibility and acceptability of prism adaptation training for people with inattention (spatial neglect), early after stroke, during usual care. Design Phase II feasibility randomised controlled trial with 3:1 stratified allocation to standard occupational therapy with or without intervention, and nested process evaluation. Setting Ten hospital sites providing in-patient stroke services. Participants Screened positive for inattention more than one-week post-stroke; informal carers. Occupational therapists participated in qualitative interviews. Intervention Adjunctive prism adaptation training at the start of standard occupational therapy sessions for three weeks. Main measures Feasibility measures included recruitment and retention rates, intervention fidelity and attrition. Outcomes collected at baseline, 3 weeks and 12 weeks tested measures including Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale. Acceptability was explored through qualitative interviews and structured questions. Results Eighty (31%) patients were eligible, 57 (71%) consented, 54 randomised (40:13, +1 exclusion) and 39 (74%) completed 12-week outcomes. Treatment fidelity was good: participants received median eight intervention sessions (IQR: 5, 12) lasting 4.7 min (IQR: 4.1, 5.0). All six serious adverse events were unrelated. There was no signal that patients allocated to intervention did better than controls. Twenty five of 35 recruited carers provided outcomes with excellent data completeness. Therapists, patients and carers found prism adaptation training acceptable. Conclusions It is feasible and acceptable to conduct a high-quality definitive trial of prism adaptation training within occupational therapy early after stroke in usual care setting, but difficult to justify given no sign of benefit over standard occupational therapy. Clinical trial registration https://www.isrctn.com/ Ref ISRCTN88395268.

IntroductionIvacaftor was the first therapy licensed to address the underlying defect in cystic fibrosis (CF). The improvements in lung function, nutritional status and pulmonary exacerbations in patients carrying aGly551Aspmutation were greater than previously seen in clinical trials for other therapies. Limited data are available regarding long-term outcomes and adherence to ivacaftor outside clinical trials.MethodsWe conducted a 5-year single-centre retrospective study of people with CF carrying theGly551Aspmutation who received ivacaftor. Clinical outcome data were extracted from medical notes and databases. Drug delivery data were used to assess medicine possession ratio (MPR).Results35 people were included. After commencing ivacaftor, FEV1improved by 9.6% (SE±1.59%) predicted by 6 months. Thereafter, FEV1declined, and at 5 years had returned to pre-ivacaftor baseline. Ivacaftor did not alter annual rate of FEV1decline (1.57% pre vs 1.82% post, p=0.74). Body mass index (BMI) increased for 4 years. There was a significant reduction in inpatient and total intravenous antibiotic days sustained over 5 years. MPR remained high but declined over time (−2.5±0.9% per year, p=0.007). FEV1was better maintained in patients with higher MPRs.ConclusionThe addition of ivacaftor provides acute benefits for people with theGly551Aspmutation and established lung disease. We report a sustained reduction in intravenous antibiotic use but following acute improvement in lung function, decline continues, and patients will continue to require medical observation and optimisation. Strategies to maintain high adherence should be a priority to prolong the benefits of ivacaftor.

BackgroundConcern remains about how occupational SARS-CoV-2 risk has evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to ascertain occupations with the greatest risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and explore how relative differences varied over the pandemic.MethodsAnalysis of cohort data from the UK Office of National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey from April 2020 to November 2021. This survey is designed to be representative of the UK population and uses regular PCR testing. Cox and multilevel logistic regression were used to compare SARS-CoV-2 infection between occupational/sector groups, overall and by four time periods with interactions, adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, region, household size, urban/rural neighbourhood and current health conditions.ResultsBased on 3 910 311 observations (visits) from 312 304 working age adults, elevated risks of infection can be seen overall for social care (HR 1.14; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.24), education (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.39), bus and coach drivers (1.43; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.97) and police and protective services (HR 1.45; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62) when compared with non-essential workers. By time period, relative differences were more pronounced early in the pandemic. For healthcare elevated odds in the early waves switched to a reduction in the later stages. Education saw raises after the initial lockdown and this has persisted. Adjustment for covariates made very little difference to effect estimates.ConclusionsElevated risks among healthcare workers have diminished over time but education workers have had persistently higher risks. Long-term mitigation measures in certain workplaces may be warranted.

Women with breast cancer-related genetic pathogenic variants (e.g., BRCA1 , BRCA2 ) or with a strong family history carry lifetime risks of developing breast cancer of up to 80 to 90 percent. A significant proportion of these women proceed to bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy. The authors aimed to document the surgical morbidity of risk-reducing mastectomy and establish whether a diagnosis of breast cancer at the time of surgery impacted outcomes.Clinical details of 445 women identified as having a greater than 25 percent lifetime risk of developing breast cancer who underwent risk-reducing mastectomy and breast reconstruction were interrogated for surgical outcomes such as planned, unplanned, and emergency procedures; complication rates; length of stay; and longevity of breast reconstruction. These outcome measures were recorded in women diagnosed with breast cancer perioperatively (cancer group) and those without malignancy (benign group).Median follow-up was similar in both groups (benign group, 70 months; cancer group, 73 months). Patients were older in the cancer group than in the benign group (43 years versus 39 years; p0.001). Women in the cancer group required more planned procedures to complete reconstruction than those in the benign group (four versus two; p = 0.002). Emergency procedures, unplanned surgical interventions (e.g., capsulectomy), and postreconstruction complication rates were similar between groups. One in five women overall required revision surgery. Patients with autologous reconstructions had a revision rate of 1.24 per 1000 person-years compared with 2.52 per 1000 person-years in the implant reconstruction group.Women contemplating risk-reducing mastectomy can be reassured that this is a safe and effective procedure but will likely take multiple interventions. This knowledge should be integral to obtaining informed consent.Risk, II.

Background: Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the spread of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoC), and the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment (PPE). Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to other interventions, or no intervention. Search methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), Clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 14 September 2021. We will conduct an update of this review in six months. Selection criteria: We included randomised control trials (RCT) and planned to include non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by co-workers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls, i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment. Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess the risk of bias, and GRADE methods to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Main results: Elimination of exposure interventions. We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards. This study is an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) at 86 schools to the test-based attendance strategy. The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection rate ratio ((RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence)). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 days at risk) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 days at risk) in the intervention group (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded to low, due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71 % in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure other outcomes, SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, and hospitalisation. We found one ongoing RCT about screening in schools, using elimination of hazard strategies. Personal protective equipment. We found one ongoing non-randomised study on the effects of closed face shields to prevent COVID-19 transmission. Other intervention categories. We did not find studies in the other intervention categories. Authors' conclusions: We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-postive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. Test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absence rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus, become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective. The included study did not report on any other primary outcomes of our review, i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events. No completed studies were identified on any other interventions specified in this review, but two eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

Introduction: Nigeria has a large estimated burden of AIDS-related mycoses. We aimed to determine the proportion of pa- tients with AIDS-related opportunistic fungal infections (OFIs) at an urban antiretroviral treatment (ART) centre in Nigeria. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a cohort of ART-naïve, HIV-infected patients, assessed for ART eligibility and ART- experience at the PEPFAR outpatient clinic at Lagos University Teaching Hospital over a 12-year period (April 2004-Feb- ruary 2016) was conducted. Results: During this period, 7,034 patients visited the clinic: 4,797 (68.2%) were female; 6161 patients had a recorded base- line CD4 count, and the median CD4 count was 184 cells/µl (IQR, 84-328). A baseline HIV-1 viral load (VL) was recorded for 5,908 patients; the median VL was 51,194 RNA copies/ml (IQR, 2,316-283,508) and 6,179/7046(88%) had initiated ART. Some 2,456 (34.9%) had a documented opportunistic infections, of whom 1,306 (18.6%) had an opportunistic fungal infection. The total number of OFI episodes was 1,632: oral candidiasis (n=1,473, 90.3%), oesophageal candidiasis (n=118; 8%), superficial mycoses (n=23; 1.6%), Pneumocystis pneumonia (PJP) (n=13; 0.8%), and cryptococcal meningitis(CM) (n=5; 0.4%). 113 (1.6%) were known to have died in the cohort. Conclusion: Approximately 1 in 5 HIV-infected patients in this retrospective cohort, most of whom had initiated ART, were clinically diagnosed with an OFI. Improved access to simple accurate diagnostic tests for CM and PJP should be pri- oritised for this setting. Keywords: Opportunistic fungal infections; ART Adherence; Advanced HIV disease.

Background No consensus on the management of symptomatic cysts or abscesses of the Bartholin's gland exists. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions for a symptomatic Bartholin's cyst or abscess. Search strategy We searched bibliographical databases from inception to April 2019. Selection criteria Randomised trials evaluating a surgical intervention for the treatment of a symptomatic Bartholin's cyst or abscess. Data collection and analysis Eight trials, reporting data from 699 women, were included. Study characteristics and methodological quality were recorded for each trial. Summary estimates were calculated using random-effects methods. Main results When considering the recurrence of a symptomatic Bartholin's cyst or abscess, the evidence was consistent with notable effects in either direction (risk ratio [RR] 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-1.40) when comparing marsupialisation with incision, drainage and insertion of a Word catheter. Limited inference could be made when comparing marsupialisation with incision, drainage and silver nitrate insertion (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.57-1.75), and incision, drainage and cavity closure (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.01-4.89). There was limited reporting of secondary outcomes, including haematoma, infectious morbidity and persistent dyspareunia. Conclusions Current randomised trial evidence does not support the use of any single surgical intervention for the treatment of a symptomatic cyst or abscess of the Bartholin's gland. Prospective registration PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; CRD42018088553. Tweetable abstract Further research is needed to identify an effective treatment for #Bartholin's cyst or abscess. @jamesmnduffy.

BackgroundConsiderable concern remains about how occupational SARS-CoV-2 risk has evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to ascertain which occupations had the greatest risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and explore how relative differences varied over the pandemic.MethodsAnalysis of cohort data from the UK Office of National Statistics Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey from April 2020 to November 2021. This survey is designed to be representative of the UK population and uses regular PCR testing. Cox and multilevel logistic regression to compare SARS-CoV-2 infection between occupational/sector groups, overall and by four time periods with interactions, adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, region, household size, urban/rural neighbourhood and current health conditions.ResultsBased on 3,910,311 observations from 312,304 working age adults, elevated risks of infection can be seen overall for social care (HR 1.14; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.24), education (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.39), bus and coach drivers (1.43; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.97) and police and protective services (HR 1.45; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62) when compared to non-essential workers. By time period, relative differences were more pronounced early in the pandemic. For healthcare elevated odds in the early waves switched to a reduction in the later stages. Education saw raises after the initial lockdown and this has persisted. Adjustment for covariates made very little difference to effect estimates.ConclusionsElevated risks among healthcare workers have diminished over time but education workers have had persistently higher risks. Long-term mitigation measures in certain workplaces may be warranted.What is already known on this topicSome occupational groups have observed increased rates of disease and mortality relating to COVID-19.What this study addsRelative differences between occupational groups have varied during different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic with risks for healthcare workers diminishing over time and workers in the education sector seeing persistent elevated risks.How this study might affect research, practice or policyIncreased long term mitigation such as ventilation should be considered in sectors with a persistent elevated risk. It is important for workplace policy to be responsive to evolving pandemic risks.

BackgroundRisk of SARS-CV-2 infection has been strongly linked to occupation, with specific occupational sectors such as health care, food production, and transport, particularly affected. To better understand the potential risks by occupational sector we investigated the reported risks of COVID-19 infection and mortality for employees in the three sectors.MethodsWe performed a rapid review of observational studies reporting COVID-19 risk for employees in health care, food manufacturing, and transport sectors. All studies published in the peer-review and pre-print literature between March 2020 and June 2021 were considered. The primary outcome measure was COVID-19 infection, with COVID-19 related mortality and hospitalisation considered as secondary measures. We extracted odds ratios/relative risks (and standard errors) comparing workers in each sector to within study reference category. To avoid complications due to study heterogeneity, we simply produced descriptive forest plots where possible utilising the odds ratios that have been adjusted for demographics.ResultsEight studies were identified from Norway (one), and California (one), and the UK (five). Three studies at time of writing were peer reviewed, and five of the eight were cohort studies. Food production was the least well investigated with limited evidence of increased infection, severe infection or mortality compared to the ‘other’ groups. Healthcare and transport show wide variation in the odds ratios reported. Public facing roles did indicate greater infection risk, specifically in the first wave. ConclusionsConsiderable study heterogeneity is present, particularly with respect to the chosen reference groups, meaning objective comparisons are limited here. However, as would be expected public facing roles, especially in the first wave, did appear to experience increased infection. Further prospective work with subject level data is needed to better understand the occupational risks.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to other interventions or no intervention.

While it is known that histologically involved margins lead to a higher local recurrence rate, re-excision of anterior margins is less common than that of radial margins. However, there are minimal long-term data on the oncological safety of non-surgical management of anterior margins. A retrospective study was performed of all patients who underwent breast conserving surgery for breast cancer between 2000 and 2008 at two tertiary referral centres. A close margin was defined as disease within two mm of the resection margin (including disease at the margin). 6922 patients underwent surgery for invasive or in situ breast cancer of whom 277 patients had a close anterior margin alone after breast conserving surgery. Two hundred and twenty patients had non-surgical management of their margins, while 57 had re-excision surgery. Overall, there were 4/57 local recurrences in the surgical management group and 12/220 in the non-surgical management group. The local recurrence-free survival rate at 5 years was 98.2% (1 recurrence, 95% CI 87.8–99.7) in the surgical management group and 97.2% (6 recurrences, 95% CI 93.8–98.7) in the non-surgical management group. At 10 years, the rates were 92.2% (4 recurrences, 95% CI 80.3–97.0) in the surgical management group and 93.9% (12 recurrences, 95% CI 89.4–96.5) in the non-surgical management group. There was no significant difference found in the local recurrence rate between management groups (HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.40, 3.85; p = 0.71). Local recurrence rates are acceptable and similar in both the surgically and non-surgically managed groups. Non-surgical management of close anterior margins appears oncologically safe when combined with appropriate adjuvant therapy.

Ivacaftor was the first therapy licensed to address the underlying defect in cystic fibrosis (CF). The improvements in lung function, nutritional status and pulmonary exacerbations in patients carrying aWe conducted a 5-year single-centre retrospective study of people with CF carrying the35 people were included. After commencing ivacaftor, FEVThe addition of ivacaftor provides acute benefits for people with the

A barrier to Lynch syndrome testing is the need for prior genetic counselling, a resource demanding process for both patients and healthcare services. We explored the impact of gynaecologist led Lynch syndrome testing in women with endometrial cancer. Women were approached before surgery, on the day of surgery or during routine follow up. Lynch syndrome testing was offered irrespective of age, family history or tumour characteristics. Women&rsquo, s reasons for being tested were explored using the Motivations and Concerns for GeNEtic Testing (MACGNET) instrument. The short form State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6) was used to measure anxiety levels. Only 3/305 women declined Lynch syndrome testing. In total, 175/220 completed MACGNET and STAI-6 psychological instruments. The consent process took an average of 7min 36sec (SD 5min 16sec) to complete. The point of care at which consent was taken (before, day of surgery, during follow up) did not influence motivation for Lynch syndrome testing. Anxiety levels were significantly lower when women were consented during follow up (mean reversed STAI-6 score 32 vs 42, p = 0.001). Anxiety levels were not affected by familial cancer history (p = 0.41). Gynaecologist led Lynch syndrome testing is feasible and may even be desirable in endometrial cancer, especially when offered during routine follow up.

Sir, We would like to thank Sharma and colleagues for their interest in our recent study evaluating the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions for Bartholin’s cyst or abscess.1Their response highlights the unique opportunity offered by randomised trials, and their syntheses into meta‐analyses, to assess patient reported outcomes. We would strongly encourage researchers to select, collect and report patient reported outcomes in future research evaluating interventions for Bartholin’s cyst or abscess.2The primary outcome should be the outcome of greatest therapeutic importance to the study’s prospective hypothesis. There is currently no consensus regarding the selection of outcomes and methods of definition or measurement for randomized trials evaluating interventions for Bartholin’s cyst or abscess.3 In the absence of a standardized approach, researchers have made arbitrary decisions when choosing among several important outcomes.4 It would be useful for healthcare professionals, researchers, and women with lived experience of Bartholin’s cyst or abscess to engage in a formal consensus development process to agree appropriate primary and secondary outcomes.3We agree the use of adjuvant antibiotics is an important consideration. They were not reported by any of the included trials.5We have no experience of marsupialization performed under local anaesthetic. In our opinion, this approach would need to be evaluated within a research setting. The recent COVID-19 pandemic would provide additional impetus to undertake this much needed research.James M. N. Duffy 1,2, Emma Kirk 3, BJG Illingworth 4, K Stocking 5,Marian Showell 61 Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.2 King’s Fertility, Fetal Medicine Research Foundation, London, United Kingdom.3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Free London NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.4 North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough City Hospital, Peterborough, UK5 Centre for Biostatistics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK6 Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) is a conservative management option for atypical hyperplasia (AH) and low grade early stage endometrial cancer (EEC), but around 1 in 3 patients fail to respond to treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate if serum and/or tissue HE4 expression could predict response to LNG-IUS therapy. Patients with AH or presumed Stage I EEC had serum and endometrial samples taken at baseline and at 3-month intervals over 12 months post-insertion of LNG-IUS. 74 patients were recruited and baseline demographics recorded. Of 57 patients for whom response was histologically determinable, 39 (68%) were responders and 18 (32%) non-responders. Mean baseline serum HE4 was significantly lower in responders (62.1 &plusmn, 1.1 pM, 95% confidence interval (CI) 52.7&ndash, 73.2), compared to non-responders (125.6 &plusmn, 1.3 pM, 95% CI 74.5&ndash, 211.7, p = 0.014), including when considering age, BMI, menopausal status, smoking status, and histological grade as covariables (p = 0.005). Baseline tissue HE4 expression was not significantly different in responders compared to non-responders (p = 0.999). Responders showed a significant mean reduction (&minus, 9.8 &plusmn, 3.4%, 95% CI &minus, 16.7 to &minus, 2.8%, p = 0.008) in serum HE4 between baseline and 3 months (p = 0.008), whereas non-responders showed no significant change (p = 0.676). Neither responders nor non-responders showed a significant percentage change in serum HE4 from baseline beyond 3 months (p &gt, 0.05). Change in serum HE4 between baseline and 3 and 6 months and tissue HE4 tissue expression between baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months was not significantly different in responders compared to non-responders (p &gt, 0.05). This study suggests that baseline serum HE4, but not baseline tissue HE4 expression, is independently predictive of response to the LNG-IUS and could be used to guide management decisions.

Objective To assess the effectiveness of patient decision aids to facilitate shared decision making in obstetrics and gynecology. Data sources We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialized register, CINAHL, and EMBASE from 1946 to July 2019. Methods of study selection We selected randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids with usual clinical practice or a control intervention. Tabulation, integration, and results Thirty-five randomized controlled trials, which reported data from 9,790 women, were included. Patient decision aids were evaluated within a wide range of clinical scenarios relevant to obstetrics and gynecology, including contraception, vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, and pelvic organ prolapse. Study characteristics and quality were recorded for each study. The meta-analysis was based on random-effects methods for pooled data. A standardized mean difference of 0.2 is considered small, 0.5 moderate, and 0.8 large. When compared with usual clinical practice, the use of patient decision aids reduced decisional conflict (standardized mean difference -0.23; 95% CI -0.36, to -0.11; 19 trials; 4,624 women) and improved patient knowledge (standardized mean difference 0.58; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71; 17 trials; 4,375 women). There was no difference in patient anxiety (standardized mean difference -0.04; 95% CI -0.14 to 0.06; 12 trials; 2,714 women) or satisfaction (standardized mean difference 0.17; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.24; 6 trials; 2,718 women). Conclusion Patient decision aids are effective in facilitating shared decision making and can be helpful in clinical practice to support patient centered care informed by the best evidence. Systematic review registration PROSPERO International Register of Systematic Reviews, www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/89953, CRD42018089953.

Background Bag-valve-mask (BVM) ventilation is a vital skill in the management of the collapsed patient; however, the quality of BVM ventilation is a cause for concern. Modified techniques, designed to be easier for the novice practitioner, offer an opportunity to improve quality. One such modification is the 'LASOO' (Lift, Apply, Slide, Oppose, Observe) approach, which offers theoretical benefits over the traditionally taught 'CE' (finger shapes) technique. We conducted a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine whether LASOO was superior to CE in terms of tidal volume, when taught to novices in the skills-lab setting. We conducted a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine whether LASOO was superior to CE in terms of tidal volume, when taught to novices in the skills-lab setting METHODS: A total of 76 undergraduate health care students received a manikin-based teaching session on LASOO or CE. They then delivered 20 breaths (10 with each hand) to a modified airway manikin. The primary outcome was mean tidal volume; secondary outcomes were the proportion of breaths that achieved 150-mL and 400-mL threshold volumes. Subgroup analyses and statistical modelling were conducted for time-point, hand dominance and hand size. Results The mean tidal volume was 320 mL for CE and 304 mL for LASOO. The median percentage of attempts that exceeded 150 mL was 85 for CE and 82.5 for LASOO. The median percentage of attempts that exceeded 400 mL was 20 for CE and 20 for LASOO. The differences recorded between the techniques were not statistically significant. There was a small, statistically significant increase in tidal volume across both techniques with time-point and holding the mask with the non-dominant hand. Discussion LASOO is a viable alternative to CE. Educators may opt to teach either or both techniques, allowing students to choose the technique that they prefer.

There are important differences in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and death depending on occupation. Infections in healthcare workers have received the most attention, and there are clearly increased risks for intensive care unit workers who are caring for COVID-19 patients. However, a number of other occupations may also be at an increased risk, particularly those which involve social care or contact with the public. A large number of data sets are available with the potential to assess occupational risks of COVID-19 incidence, severity, or mortality. We are reviewing these data sets as part of the Partnership for Research in Occupational, Transport, Environmental COVID Transmission (PROTECT) initiative, which is part of the National COVID-19 Core Studies. In this report, we review the data sets available (including the key variables on occupation and potential confounders) for examining occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 incidence, severity and mortality. We also discuss the possible types of analyses of these data sets and the definitions of (occupational) exposure and outcomes. We conclude that none of these data sets are ideal, and all have various strengths and weaknesses. For example, mortality data suffer from problems of coding of COVID-19 deaths, and the deaths (in England and Wales) that have been referred to the coroner are unavailable. On the other hand, testing data is heavily biased in some periods (particularly the first wave) because some occupations (e.g. healthcare workers) were tested more often than the general population. Random population surveys are, in principle, ideal for estimating population prevalence and incidence, but are also affected by non-response. Thus, any analysis of the risks in a particular occupation or sector (e.g. transport), will require a careful analysis and triangulation of findings across the various available data sets.

Aim: Delayed presentation in acute testicular torsion increases risk of testicular loss. We investigated whether there is a delay in presentation with suspected torsion in patients from an ethnic minority. Patients and methods: A retrospective audit of patients undergoing scrotal exploration for suspected torsion from September 2014 to September 2019 was completed. Notes were used to identify time between onset of pain and presentation to hospital. Patients’ ethnicity was identified through voluntary demographic information. Median time to presentation was compared between ethnic minorities and white British patients, as well as exploration findings. Results: Ethnic minority patients ( n=29) with suspected torsion presented significantly later with a median of 19 hours (range 1.3–192) compared to 4 hours (0.5–96) in white British patients ( n=65). ( pConclusion(s): In our population, ethnic minorities present later with acute scrotal pain, increasing their risk of testicular loss. More study is required to identify causes of delayed presentation in these patients with the aim of improving health education. Level of evidence: 3