Comparing the performance of 2 human papillomavirus assays for a new use indication: a real-world evidence-based evaluation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration supports innovations to facilitate new indications for high-risk human papillomavirus testing. This report describes the retrospective testing of stored specimens and analysis of existing data to efficiently and cost-effectively support a new indication for the Onclarity human papillomavirus assay (Becton, Dickinson and Company, BD Life Sciences - Integrated Diagnostic Solutions, Sparks, MD). The performance of this index test was compared with that of a predicate test, the cobas human papillomavirus assay (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN). Both human papillomavirus assays are based on real-time polymerase chain reaction platforms that detect the presence of 14 high-risk human papillomavirus genotypes. The predicate assay reports human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 as individual results and the other 12 human papillomavirus genotypes as 1 pooled result. The index assay reports 9 independent results (human papillomavirus types 16, 18, 31, 33/58, 35/39/68, 45, 51, 52, and 56/59/66). Both the index and predicate assays are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for cervical cancer screening, but at the time that this study was initiated, the index human papillomavirus assay was not approved for use with cervical specimens collected in PreservCyt (Hologic, Inc, San Diego, CA) liquid-based cytology media. OBJECTIVE: The performance of the index human papillomavirus assay was compared with that of the predicate human papillomavirus assay for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 or greater and 3 or greater (≥CIN2 or ≥CIN3) using PreservCyt liquid-based cytology specimens collected from women aged 21 to 65 years. In addition, the ability of the index test's extended genotyping to stratify ≥CIN2 and ≥CIN3 risks, using these specimens, was evaluated. STUDY DESIGN: The New Mexico HPV Pap Registry was used to select an age- and cytology-stratified random sample of 19,879 women undergoing opportunistic cervical screening and follow-up in routine clinical practice across New Mexico. A subset (n = 4820) of PreservCyt specimens was selected from 19,879 women for paired testing by the index and predicate human papillomavirus assays within age and cytology strata and included women with or without cervical biopsy follow-up. Point estimate differences and ratios were calculated for cervical disease detection and positivity rates, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals to determine statistical significance. The cumulative risk of ≥CIN2 or ≥CIN3, with up to 5-year follow-up, was estimated for the index assay using Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: The 5-year cumulative ≥CIN3 detection rates were 5.6% for the index assay and 4.6% for the predicate assay (difference, 1.0%; 95% confidence interval, 0.5%-1.5%). The ≥CIN3 positivity rates within <1 year were 95.3% for the index assay and 94.5% for the predicate assay (ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.06). The ≥CIN3 cumulative positivity rates for the index and predicate assays were also similar at 5 years. Among cases of ≥CIN3, the positive agreement rates between the index and predicate assays for human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 were 100.0% (95% confidence interval, 95.0%-100.0%) and 90.9% (95% confidence interval, 62.3%-98.4%), respectively. Human papillomavirus type 16 carried the highest ≥CIN2 or ≥CIN3 risk, followed by human papillomavirus types 18/31/33/58/52/45 and human papillomavirus types 35/56/59/51/56/59/66. CONCLUSION: The index and predicate human papillomavirus assays demonstrated equivalent performance, and extended human papillomavirus genotyping, using the index assay, provided effective ≥CIN2 and ≥CIN3 risk stratification, supporting a new indication for use of the index assay with PreservCyt.

Research integrity in clinical trials: innocent errors and spin versus scientific misconduct.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: High-quality research underpins the best healthcare practice. This article focuses on analyzing the current literature to promote research integrity across clinical trials. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent admissions of questionable practices by researchers have undermined practitioner and public confidence. There is limited evidence specifically for ethical and professional standards in clinical trials to guide researchers and institutions to embed integrity into research practice. SUMMARY: Unintentional errors and spin in research are not uncommon as training in design and conduct of clinical trials is not part of health education for medical and allied health professions. There is unfamiliarity with procedures, such as prospective registration, a priori documentation of statistical analysis plans, openness in data sharing, and so forth. This, combined with the academic culture of secrecy, has led to an environment where scientific suspicion, instead of trust, is the norm. Existing science integrity documents are devoid of specific recommendations about how to translate any guidance into clinical trial practice. There is a need for constructive, supportive and multidisciplinary approaches based on open dialogue and continuous training, targeting the research environment. Research integrity now needs to take centre stage to re-instill confidence in randomized trial evidence to inform clinical practice.

Factors that Influence the Reported Sensitivity of Rapid Antigen Testing for SARS-CoV-2.

Tests that detect the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen in clinical specimens from the upper respiratory tract can provide a rapid means of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis and help identify individuals who may be infectious and should isolate to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. This systematic review assesses the diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in COVID-19 symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals compared to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and summarizes antigen test sensitivity using meta-regression. In total, 83 studies were included that compared SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen-based lateral flow testing (RALFT) to RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2. Generally, the quality of the evaluated studies was inconsistent; nevertheless, the overall sensitivity for RALFT was determined to be 75.0% (95% confidence interval: 71.0-78.0). Additionally, RALFT sensitivity was found to be higher for symptomatic vs. asymptomatic individuals and was higher for a symptomatic population within 7 days from symptom onset compared to a population with extended days of symptoms. Viral load was found to be the most important factor for determining SARS-CoV-2 antigen test sensitivity. Other design factors, such as specimen storage and anatomical collection type, also affect the performance of RALFT. RALFT and RT-qPCR testing both achieve high sensitivity when compared to SARS-CoV-2 viral culture.

Antigen-Based Testing but Not Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Correlates With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Viral Culture.

BACKGROUND: Individuals can test positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by molecular assays following the resolution of their clinical disease. Recent studies indicate that SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based tests are likely to be positive early in the disease course, when there is an increased likelihood of high levels of infectious virus. METHODS: Upper respiratory specimens from 251 participants with coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms (≤7 days from symptom onset) were prospectively collected and tested with a lateral flow antigen test and a real-time polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Specimens from a subset of the study specimens were utilized to determine the presence of infectious virus in the VeroE6TMPRSS2 cell culture model. RESULTS: The antigen test demonstrated a higher positive predictive value (90%) than rt-PCR (70%) when compared to culture-positive results. The positive percentage agreement for detection of infectious virus for the antigen test was similar to rt-PCR when compared to culture results. CONCLUSIONS: The correlation between SARS-CoV-2 antigen and SARS-CoV-2 culture positivity represents a significant advancement in determining the risk for potential transmissibility beyond that which can be achieved by detection of SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA. SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing can facilitate low-cost, scalable, and rapid time-to-result, while providing good risk determination of those who are likely harboring infectious virus, compared to rt-PCR.

The Potential Clinical and Economic Value of a Human Papillomavirus Primary Screening Test That Additionally Identifies Genotypes 31, 45, 51, and 52 Individually.

BACKGROUND: Although current human papillomavirus (HPV) genotype screening tests identify genotypes 16 and 18 and do not specifically identify other high-risk types, a new extended genotyping test identifies additional individual (31, 45, 51, and 52) and groups (33/58, 35/39/68, and 56/59/66) of high-risk genotypes. METHODS: We developed a Markov model of the HPV disease course and evaluated the clinical and economic value of HPV primary screening with Onclarity (BD Diagnostics, Franklin Lakes, NJ) capable of extended genotyping in a cohort of women 30 years or older. Women with certain genotypes were later rescreened instead of undergoing immediate colposcopy and varied which genotypes were rescreened, disease progression rate, and test cost. RESULTS: Assuming 100% compliance with screening, HPV primary screening using current tests resulted in 25,194 invasive procedures and 48 invasive cervical cancer (ICC) cases per 100,000 women. Screening with extended genotyping (100% compliance) and later rescreening women with certain genotypes averted 903 to 3163 invasive procedures and resulted in 0 to 3 more ICC cases compared with current HPV primary screening tests. Extended genotyping was cost-effective ($2298-$7236/quality-adjusted life year) when costing $75 and cost saving (median, $0.3-$1.0 million) when costing $43. When the probabilities of disease progression increased (2-4 times), extended genotyping was not cost-effective because it resulted in more ICC cases and accrued fewer quality-adjusted life years. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified the conditions under which extended genotyping was cost-effective and even cost saving compared with current tests. A key driver of cost-effectiveness is the risk of disease progression, which emphasizes the need to better understand such risks in different populations.

Human Papillomavirus Same Genotype Persistence and Risk: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to examine whether high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) was more closely associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) same-genotype persistence (SGTP) versus clearance of prior infection with a subsequent infection by a new genotype (genotype switch [GS]), clearance of HPV infection, or acquisition of a new HPV infection after a negative infection status, during a follow-up testing subsequent to abnormal screening results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched from January 2000 to July 2019 for prospective controlled trials and observational studies of women and retrospective studies using HPV assays with extended- or full-genotype reporting. The primary outcome was high-grade CIN after at least 2 rounds of testing. Overall quality of evidence for the risk estimate outcomes was assessed. Of the 830 identified abstracts, 66 full-text articles were reviewed, and 7 studies were included in the synthesis. The study protocol was registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018091093). RESULTS: Continued HPV-positive women falls in 2 equally large groups: SGTP and GS. Sensitivity, positive predictive value, and positive likelihood ratio of SGTP were significantly higher than for GS. Human papillomavirus genotypes may be ranked into 3 tiers (immediate colposcopy, follow-up testing, return to routine screening), according to associated risk of persistence for high-grade CIN and to prevailing clinical action thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: There is moderately high-quality evidence to support the clinical utility of SGTP to improve risk discrimination for high-grade CIN compared with qualitative HPV testing without genotype-specific information.

Clinical Evaluation of BD Veritor SARS-CoV-2 Point-of-Care Test Performance Compared to PCR-Based Testing and versus the Sofia 2 SARS Antigen Point-of-Care Test.

The clinical performance of the BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (Veritor), a chromatographic immunoassay used for SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care testing, was evaluated using nasal specimens from individuals with COVID-19 symptoms. Two studies were completed to determine clinical performance. In the first study, nasal specimens and either nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal specimens from 251 participants with COVID-19 symptoms (≤7 days from symptom onset [DSO], ≥18 years of age) were utilized to compare Veritor with the Lyra SARS-CoV-2 PCR assay (Lyra). In the second study, nasal specimens from 361 participants with COVID-19 symptoms (≤5 DSO, ≥18 years of age) were utilized to compare performance of Veritor to that of the Sofia 2 SARS Antigen FIA test (Sofia 2). The positive, negative, and overall percent agreement (PPA, NPA, and OPA, respectively) were the primary outcomes. In study 1, the PPA for Veritor, compared to Lyra, ranged from 81.8 to 87.5% across the 0 to 1 and 0 to 6 DSO ranges. In study 2, Veritor had PPA, NPA, and OPA values of 97.4, 98.1, and 98.1%, respectively, with Sofia 2. Discordant analysis showed one Lyra positive missed by Veritor and five Lyra positives missed by Sofia 2; one Veritor positive result was negative by Lyra. Veritor met FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) acceptance criteria for SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing for the 0 to 5 and 0 to 6 DSO ranges (PPA values of 83.9% and 82.4%, respectively). Veritor and Sofia 2 showed a high degree of agreement for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The Veritor test allows for more rapid COVID-19 testing utilizing easy-to-collect nasal swabs but demonstrated <100% PPA compared to PCR.

Clinical Utility of Human Papillomavirus Genotyping in Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Thirteen human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes are associated with the highest risk of cervical disease/cancer; however, the risk of disease progression and cancer is genotype dependent. The objective of this systematic review was to examine evidence for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (≥CIN 3) risk discrimination using HPV genotyping. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of English and non-English articles through MEDLINE, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, and abstracts presented at relevant professional society conferences were searched from 2000 to 2019. Search terms included: cervical cancer screening, HPV genotyping, CIN, HPV persistence, humans, and colposcopy; prospective, controlled trials, observational studies, and retrospective studies of residual specimens; evidence included HPV genotyping (beyond genotypes 16/18/45) results. Data were obtained independently by authors using predefined fields. Risk of bias was evaluated with a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology facilitated overall quality of evidence evaluation for risk estimation. The study protocol was registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018091093). The primary outcome was CIN 3 or worse risk both at baseline and at different follow-up periods. RESULTS: Of 236 identified sources, 60 full texts were retrieved and 16 articles/sources were included. Risk of bias was deemed low; the overall quality of evidence for CIN 3 or worse risk with negative for intraepithelial lesions or malignancies or low-grade squamous intraepithelial cytology was assessed as moderate; that with atypical squamous cells-undetermined significance and "all cytology" was assessed as high. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Human papillomavirus genotyping discriminated risk of CIN 3 or worse to a clinically significant degree, regardless of cytology result. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supports a clinical utility for HPV genotyping in risk discrimination during cervical cancer screening.

Human Papillomavirus Genotyping Compared With a Qualitative High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Test After Treatment of High-Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically examine human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping compared with qualitative high-risk HPV result during follow-up after treatment of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), for risk estimation of posttreatment high-grade CIN. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 2000 to April 2019 for prospective studies of women and retrospective studies of residual specimens from women, tested using HPV assays with genotype reporting. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: The primary outcome was posttreatment high-grade CIN after treatment of high-grade CIN. Risk of bias (individual study quality) was evaluated with a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Overall quality of evidence for the risk estimate outcomes was evaluated using modified GRADE methodology for observational diagnostic studies. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Of the 233 identified abstracts, 33 full-text articles were retrieved, and seven studies were included in the synthesis. The risk of bias was deemed to be low. Either a positive qualitative HPV test result or a positive test result for the same genotype that was present pretreatment have a sensitivity for predicting posttreatment high-grade CIN that approaches 100%. However, the positive predictive value (PPV) for the same genotype result pretreatment and posttreatment (median 44.4%) is about double the PPV (median 22.2%) for qualitative HPV results. The PPV of a new HPV infection posttreatment approximates zero. Human papillomavirus genotyping discriminated risk of posttreatment high-grade CIN to a clinically significant degree for women after treatment procedures for high-grade CIN lesions, when same-genotype persistence was compared with new genotype infection. CONCLUSION: There is moderately high-quality evidence to support the improved clinical utility of HPV genotyping compared with qualitative HPV positivity to follow-up after treatment of high-grade CIN. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42018091095. FUNDING SOURCE: Becton, Dickinson and Company, BD Life Sciences-Diagnostic Systems.

Nutritional and Dietary Interventions for Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) frequently use special diets or receive nutritional supplements to treat ASD symptoms. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dietary interventions or nutritional supplements in ASD. DATA SOURCES: Databases, including Medline and PsycINFO. STUDY SELECTION: Two investigators independently screened studies against predetermined criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: One investigator extracted data with review by a second investigator. Investigators independently assessed the risk of bias and strength of evidence (SOE) (ie, confidence in the estimate of effects). RESULTS: Nineteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 4 with a low risk of bias, evaluated supplements or variations of the gluten/casein-free diet and other dietary approaches. Populations, interventions, and outcomes varied. Ω-3 supplementation did not affect challenging behaviors and was associated with minimal harms (low SOE). Two RCTs of different digestive enzymes reported mixed effects on symptom severity (insufficient SOE). Studies of other supplements (methyl B12, levocarnitine) reported some improvements in symptom severity (insufficient SOE). Studies evaluating gluten/casein-free diets reported some parent-rated improvements in communication and challenging behaviors; however, data were inadequate to make conclusions about the body of evidence (insufficient SOE). Studies of gluten- or casein-containing challenge foods reported no effects on behavior or gastrointestinal symptoms with challenge foods (insufficient SOE); 1 RCT reported no effects of camel's milk on ASD severity (insufficient SOE). Harms were disparate. LIMITATIONS: Studies were small and short-term, and there were few fully categorized populations or concomitant interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence to support the use of nutritional supplements or dietary therapies for children with ASD.

Nitrous oxide for the management of labor pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: We systematically reviewed evidence addressing the effectiveness of nitrous oxide for the management of labor pain, the influence of nitrous oxide on women's satisfaction with their birth experience and labor pain management, and adverse effects associated with nitrous oxide for labor pain management. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases for articles published in English. The study population included pregnant women in labor intending a vaginal birth, birth attendees or health care providers who may be exposed to nitrous oxide during labor, and the fetus/neonate. RESULTS: We identified a total of 58 publications, representing 59 distinct study populations: 2 studies were of good quality, 11 fair, and 46 poor. Inhalation of nitrous oxide provided less effective pain relief than epidural analgesia, but the quality of studies was predominately poor. The heterogeneous outcomes used to assess women's satisfaction with their birth experience and labor pain management made synthesis of studies difficult. Most maternal adverse effects reported in the literature were unpleasant side effects that affect tolerability, such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and drowsiness. Apgar scores in newborns whose mothers used nitrous oxide were not significantly different from those of newborns whose mothers used other labor pain management methods or no analgesia. Evidence about occupational harms and exposure was limited. CONCLUSIONS: The literature addressing nitrous oxide for the management of labor pain includes few studies of good or fair quality. Further research is needed across all of the areas examined: effectiveness, satisfaction, and adverse effects.

GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength.

In the GRADE approach, the strength of a recommendation reflects the extent to which we can be confident that the composite desirable effects of a management strategy outweigh the composite undesirable effects. This article addresses GRADE's approach to determining the direction and strength of a recommendation. The GRADE describes the balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes of interest among alternative management strategies depending on four domains, namely estimates of effect for desirable and undesirable outcomes of interest, confidence in the estimates of effect, estimates of values and preferences, and resource use. Ultimately, guideline panels must use judgment in integrating these factors to make a strong or weak recommendation for or against an intervention.

Progestogens for preterm birth prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis by drug route.

PURPOSE: Progestogen has been investigated as a preventive intervention among women with increased preterm birth risk. Our objective was to systematically review the effectiveness of intramuscular (IM), vaginal, and oral progestogens for preterm birth and neonatal death prevention. METHODS: We included articles published from January 1966 to January 2013 and found 27 randomized trials with data for Bayesian meta-analysis. RESULTS: Across all studies, only vaginal and oral routes were effective at reducing preterm births (IM risk ratio [RR] 0.95, 95 % Bayesian credible interval [BCI]: 0.88-1.03; vaginal RR 0.87, 95 % BCI: 0.80-0.94; oral RR 0.64, 95 % BCI: 0.49-0.85). However, when analyses were limited to only single births all routes were effective at reducing preterm birth (IM RR 0.77, 95 % BCI: 0.69-0.87; vaginal RR 0.80, 95 % BCI: 0.69-0.91; oral RR 0.66, 95 % BCI: 0.47-0.84). Only IM progestogen was effective at reducing neonatal deaths (IM RR 0.78, 95 % BCI: 0.56-0.99; vaginal RR 0.75, 95 % BCI: 0.45-1.09; oral RR 0.72, 95 % BCI: 0.09-1.74). Vaginal progestogen was effective in reducing neonatal deaths when limited to singletons births. CONCLUSIONS: All progestogen routes reduce preterm births but not neonatal deaths. Future studies are needed that directly compare progestogen delivery routes.

Progestogens for preterm birth prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We systematically reviewed the effectiveness of progestogens for prevention of preterm birth among women with prior spontaneous preterm birth, multiple gestations, preterm labor, short cervix, or other indications. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for English language articles published from January 1966 to October 2011. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We excluded publications that were not randomized controlled trials or had fewer than 20 participants, identifying 34 publications, of which 19 contained data for Bayesian meta-analysis. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assigned overall quality ratings based on predetermined criteria. Among women with prior preterm birth and a singleton pregnancy (five randomized controlled trials), progestogen treatment decreased the median risk of preterm birth by 22% (relative risk [RR] 0.78, 95% Bayesian credible interval 0.68-0.88) and neonatal death by 42% (RR 0.58, 95% Bayesian credible interval 0.27-0.98). The evidence suggests progestogen treatment does not prevent prematurity (RR 1.02, 95% Bayesian credible interval 0.87-1.17) or neonatal death (RR 1.44, 95% Bayesian credible interval 0.46-3.18) in multiple gestations. Limited evidence suggests progestogen treatment may prevent prematurity in women with preterm labor (RR 0.62, 95% Bayesian credible interval 0.47-0.79) and short cervix (RR 0.52, 95% Bayesian credible interval 0.36-0.70). Across indications, evidence about maternal, fetal, or neonatal health outcomes, other than reducing preterm birth and neonatal mortality, is inconsistent, insufficient, or absent. CONCLUSION: Progestogens prevent preterm birth when used in singleton pregnancies for women with a prior preterm birth. In contrast, evidence suggests lack of effectiveness for multiple gestations. Evidence supporting all other uses is insufficient to guide clinical care. Overall, clinicians and patients lack longer-term information to understand whether intervention has the ultimately desired outcome of preventing morbidity and promoting normal childhood development.

Closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science (vol. 3: quality improvement interventions to address health disparities).

OBJECTIVE: This review evaluates the effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) strategies in reducing disparities in health and health care. DATA SOURCES: We identified papers published in English between 1983 and 2011 from the MEDLINE® database, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science Social Science Index, and PsycINFO. REVIEW METHODS: All abstracts and full-text articles were dually reviewed. Studies were eligible if they reported data on effectiveness of QI interventions on processes or health outcomes in the United States such that the impact on a health disparity could be measured. The review focused on the following clinical conditions: breast cancer, colorectal cancer, diabetes, heart failure, hypertension, coronary artery disease, asthma, major depressive disorder, cystic fibrosis, pneumonia, pregnancy, and end-stage renal disease. It assessed health disparities associated with race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, insurance status, sexual orientation, health literacy/numeracy, and language barrier. We evaluated the risk of bias of individual studies and the overall strength of the body of evidence based on risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision. RESULTS: Nineteen papers, representing 14 primary research studies, met criteria for inclusion. All but one of the studies incorporated multiple components into their QI approach. Patient education was part of most interventions (12 of 14), although the specific approach differed substantially across the studies. Ten of the studies incorporated self-management; this would include, for example, teaching individuals with diabetes to check their blood sugar regularly. Most (8 of 14) included some sort of provider education, which may have focused on the clinical issue or on raising awareness about disparities affecting the target population. Studies evaluated the effect of these strategies on disparities in the prevention or treatment of breast or colorectal cancer, cardiovascular disease, depression, or diabetes. Overall, QI interventions were not shown to reduce disparities. Most studies have focused on racial or ethnic disparities, with some targeted interventions demonstrating greater effect in racial minorities--specifically, supporting individuals in tracking their blood pressure at home to reduce blood pressure and collaborative care to improve depression care. In one study, the effect of a language-concordant breast cancer screening intervention was helpful in promoting mammography in Spanish-speaking women. For some depression care outcomes, the collaborative care model was more effective in less-educated individuals than in those with more education and in women than in men. CONCLUSIONS: The literature on QI interventions generally and their ability to improve health and health care is large. Whether those interventions are effective at reducing disparities remains unclear. This report should not be construed to assess the general effectiveness of QI in the health care setting; rather, QI has not been shown specifically to reduce known disparities in health care or health outcomes. In a few instances, some increased effect is seen in disadvantaged populations; these studies should be replicated and the interventions studied further as having potential to address disparities.

Vulvodynia interventions--systematic review and evidence grading.

INTRODUCTION: State of the art guidance exists for management of vulvodynia, but the scientific basis for interventions has not been well described. Although there are many interventional therapies, and their use is increasing, there is also uncertainty or controversy about their efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess benefits and harms of interventional therapies for vulvodynia and vestibulodynia. METHODS: The following databases were searched, using MeSH terms for studies related to the treatment of vulvodynia or vulva pain/pruritus/dysesthesia/hyperesthesia/hypersensitivity: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library, EBSCO Academic, and Google Scholar. Using Medical Subject Reference sections of relevant original articles, reviews, and evidence-based guidelines were screened manually. Manual searching for indirect evidence supporting interventions was done whenever no direct evidence was found for a treatment described within a review or guideline. Each modality is assessed with a grading system similar to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. The grading system assesses study quality, effect size, benefits, risks, burdens, and costs. RESULTS: For improvement of pain and/or function in women with vestibulodynia (provoked localized vulvodynia), there was fair evidence that vestibulectomy was of benefit, but the size of the effect cannot be determined with confidence. There was good evidence of a placebo effect from multiple studies of nonsurgical interventions. There was fair evidence of lack of efficacy for several nonsurgical interventions. There were several interventions for which there were insufficient evidence to reliably evaluate. There was insufficient evidence to judge harms or to judge long-term benefits. For clinically meaningful improvement of pain in women with generalized unprovoked vulvodynia, there was insufficient evidence for benefit of any intervention. There was fair evidence of a placebo effect in people with neuropathic pain and functional pain syndromes, from multiple studies of interventions. Based on indirect evidences from studies of patients with other pain disorders, interventions may be selected for future research. CONCLUSION: There is fair evidence for effectiveness of vestibulectomy for vestibulodynia; however, there is uncertainty about the size of the absolute effect, because of the risk of bias inherent in studies of pain interventions without a placebo control group. Providers and patients looking for evidence-based interventions for generalized unprovoked vulvodynia may need to rely on indirect evidences from studies of neuropathic pain and functional pain syndromes. TARGET AUDIENCE: Obstetricians & gynecologists, family physicians. LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After completion of this educational activity, the obstetrician/gynecologist should be better able to identify potential causes of vulvar pain to facilitate diagnosis of vulvodynia and vestibulodynia, distinguish between the symptoms of localized, provoked vulvodynia and generalized unprovoked vulvodynia to select the most appropriate therapies, evaluate the efficacy of surgical and nonsurgical interventions for the treatment of generalized unprovoked and localized, provoked vulvodynia. In addition, assess the benefits and risks of interventional therapies for vulvodynia and vestibulodynia to improve patient care.

Inaccuracies introduced by single width blood pressure cuffs.

Blood pressure cuff dimensions directly affect accuracy of blood pressure measurements. For accurate blood pressure measurements, the width of the cuff must be proportional to arm circumference. A cuff that is too narrow results in falsely high blood pressure values, and a cuff that is too wide results in falsely low values. Some blood pressure standards permit a single width cuff regardless of arm circumference. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether 12 cm single width cuffs currently permitted by the British Hypertension Society (BHS) standard are sufficiently accurate to pass the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI), BHS, and European Society of Hypertension (ESH) International Protocol (IP1) Working Group standards for accuracy. Each of 101 subjects was tested sequentially with both a single and a proportional width cuff in random order. Auscultatory blood pressure was determined by 2 observers using a double binaural stethoscope. Accuracy was determined by comparing the resulting differences with the AAMI, BHS, and IP1 standards for accuracy. The single width blood pressure cuff failed the AAMI accuracy standards for both systolic blood pressure on large arms and diastolic blood pressure on small and large arms, and overall. The single width cuffs, also, failed the BHS accuracy standards for diastolic BP. In conclusion, these single width cuffs could result in a significant number of people being misdiagnosed and mistreated for hypertension. Therefore, to avoid 'cuff hypertension' and 'cuff hypotension', the cuff width should be proportional to arm circumference.