Search

Purpose: The surgical implantation of polypropylene (PP) meshes has been linked to the occurrence of systemic autoimmune disorders. We performed a systematic review to determine whether PP implants for inguinal, ventral hernia or pelvic floor surgery are associated with the development of systemic autoimmune syndromes. Methods: We searched Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane library, clinicaltrialsregister.eu, clinicaltrails.gov and WHO-ICTR platform. Last search was performed on November 24th 2021. All types of studies reporting systemic inflammatory/autoimmune response in patients having a PP implant for either pelvic floor surgery, ventral or inguinal hernia repair were included. Animal studies, case reports and articles without full text were excluded. We intended to perform a meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was assessed with the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. This study was registered at Prospero (CRD42020220705). Results: Of 2137 records identified, 4 were eligible. Two retrospective matched cohort studies focused on mesh surgery for vaginal prolapse or inguinal hernia compared to hysterectomy and colonoscopy, respectively. One cohort study compared the incidence of systemic conditions in women having urinary incontinence surgery with and without mesh. These reports had a low risk of bias. A meta-analysis showed no association when comparing systemic disease between mesh and control groups. Calculated risk ratio was 0.9 (95% CI 0.82–0.98). The fourth study was a case series with a high risk of bias, with a sample of 714 patients with systemic disease, 40 of whom had PP mesh implanted. Conclusion: There is no evidence to suggest a causal relationship between being implanted with a PP mesh and the occurrence of autoimmune disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To reduce the risk of postoperative stress urinary incontinence (POSUI) prolapse repair might be combined with incontinence surgery.Objectives: Compare efficacy and safety of prolapse surgery with and without incontinence surgery.Search Strategy: Including our earlier review a systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and the Register of Current Controlled Trials was performed from 1995 to 2017.Selection Criteria: Randomised trials comparing prolapse surgery with a midurethral sling (MUS) or Burch colposuspension.Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers selected eligible articles and extracted data. Stress urinary outcomes were pooled for preoperative SUI. Urgency incontinence and adverse events were pooled for incontinence procedure.Main Results: Ten trials were included. Women with preoperative SUI symptoms or occult SUI had a lower risk to undergo subsequent incontinence surgery for POSUI after vaginal prolapse surgery with a MUS than after prolapse surgery only: 0 versus 40% [relative risk (RR) 0.0; 95% CI 0.0-0.2] and 1 versus 15% (RR 0.1; 95% CI 0.0-0.6), respectively. These differences were not significant in continent women not tested for occult SUI or without occult SUI. Serious adverse events were more frequent after vaginal prolapse repair with MUS (14 versus 8%; RR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.7), but not after sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension. Combination surgery did not increase the risk of overactive bladder symptoms, urgency incontinence and surgery for voiding dysfunction.Conclusions: Vaginal prolapse repair with MUS reduced the risk of postoperative SUI in women with preoperative SUI symptoms or occult SUI, but serious adverse events were more frequent.Tweetable Abstract: Less stress incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair with sling, but more adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of a hysteroscopic niche resection versus no treatment in women with postmenstrual spotting and a uterine caesarean scar defect.Design: Multicentre randomised controlled trial.Setting: Eleven hospitals collaborating in a consortium for women's health research in the Netherlands.Population: Women reporting postmenstrual spotting after a caesarean section who had a niche with a residual myometrium of ≥3 mm, measured during sonohysterography.Methods: Women were randomly allocated to hysteroscopic niche resection or expectant management for 6 months.Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days of postmenstrual spotting 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were spotting at the end of menstruation, intermenstrual spotting, dysuria, sonographic niche measurements, surgical parameters, quality of life, women's satisfaction, sexual function, and additional therapy. Outcomes were measured at 3 months and, except for niche measurements, also at 6 months after randomisation.Results: We randomised 52 women to hysteroscopic niche resection and 51 women to expectant management. The median number of days of postmenstrual spotting at baseline was 8 days in both groups. At 6 months after randomisation, the median number of days of postmenstrual spotting was 4 days (interquartile range, IQR 2-7 days) in the intervention group and 7 days (IQR 3-10 days) in the control group (P = 0.04); on a scale of 0-10, discomfort as a result of spotting had a median score of 2 (IQR 0-7) in the intervention group, compared with 7 (IQR 0-8) in the control group (P = 0.02).Conclusions: In women with a niche with a residual myometrium of ≥3 mm, hysteroscopic niche resection reduced postmenstrual spotting and spotting-related discomfort.Tweetable Abstract: A hysteroscopic niche resection is an effective treatment to reduce niche-related spotting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: GPs report various barriers to the use and practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM). A review of research on these barriers may help solve problems regarding the uptake of evidence in clinical outpatient practice.Aim: To determine the barriers encountered by GPs in the practice of EBM and to come up with solutions to the barriers identified.Design: A systematic review of the literature.Method: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, and the Cochrane Library, until February 2011. Primary studies (all methods, all languages) that explore the barriers that GPs encounter in the practice of EBM were included.Results: A total of 14 700 articles were identified, of which 22 fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Of the latter, nine concerned qualitative, 12 concerned quantitative, and one concerned both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The barriers described in the articles cover the categories: evidence (including the accompanying EBM steps), the GP's preferences (experience, expertise, education), and the patient's preferences. The particular GP setting also has important barriers to the use of EBM. Barriers found in this review, among others, include lack of time, EBM skills, and available evidence; patient-related factors; and the attitude of the GP.Conclusion: Various barriers are encountered when using EBM in GP practice. Interventions that help GPs to overcome these barriers are needed, both within EBM education and in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Teaching the steps of evidence-based practice (EBP) has become standard curriculum for health professions at both student and professional levels. Determining the best methods for evaluating EBP learning is hampered by a dearth of valid and practical assessment tools and by the absence of guidelines for classifying the purpose of those that exist. Conceived and developed by delegates of the Fifth International Conference of Evidence-Based Health Care Teachers and Developers, the aim of this statement is to provide guidance for purposeful classification and development of tools to assess EBP learning. Discussion This paper identifies key principles for designing EBP learning assessment tools, recommends a common taxonomy for new and existing tools, and presents the Classification Rubric for EBP Assessment Tools in Education (CREATE) framework for classifying such tools. Recommendations are provided for developers of EBP learning assessments and priorities are suggested for the types of assessments that are needed. Examples place existing EBP assessments into the CREATE framework to demonstrate how a common taxonomy might facilitate purposeful development and use of EBP learning assessment tools. Summary The widespread adoption of EBP into professional education requires valid and reliable measures of learning. Limited tools exist with established psychometrics. This international consensus statement strives to provide direction for developers of new EBP learning assessment tools and a framework for classifying the purposes of such tools.

Abstract Background Learning styles determine how people manage new information. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) involves the management of information in clinical practice. As a consequence, the way in which a person uses EBM can be related to his or her learning style. In order to tailor EBM education to the individual learner, this study aims to determine whether there is a relationship between an individual's learning style and EBM competence (knowledge/skills, attitude, behaviour). Methods In 2008, we conducted a survey among 140 novice GP trainees in order to assess their EBM competence and learning styles (Accommodator, Diverger, Assimilator, Converger, or mixed learning style). Results The trainees' EBM knowledge/skills (scale 0-15; mean 6.8; 95%CI 6.4-7.2) were adequate and their attitudes towards EBM (scale 0-100; mean 63; 95%CI 61.3-64.3) were positive. We found no relationship between their knowledge/skills or attitudes and their learning styles (p = 0.21; p = 0.19). Of the trainees, 40% used guidelines to answer clinical questions and 55% agreed that the use of guidelines is the most appropriate way of applying EBM in general practice. Trainees preferred using evidence from summaries to using evidence from single studies. There were no differences in medical decision-making or in EBM use (p = 0.59) for the various learning styles. However, we did find a link between having an Accommodating or Converging learning style and making greater use of intuition. Moreover, trainees with different learning styles expressed different ideas about the optimal use of EBM in primary care. Conclusions We found that EBM knowledge/skills and EBM attitudes did not differ with respect to the learning styles of GP trainees. However, we did find differences relating to the use of intuition and the trainees' ideas regarding the use of evidence in decision-making.