[Why me? About risk and chance in case of illness]. / Waarom ik? Over risico en toeval bij ziekte.

In explaining why a patient has been struck with disease, health care professionals may turn to arguments from epidemiology, pointing to risk factors from lifestyle, diet, or genetics. Yet many patients build detailed narratives on why and when disease and illness overcame them. They can point to specific behaviors, of themselves or others, to stress, or fate. Such stories and health beliefs can help patients preserve mental health in the context of life-threatening diagnoses but stories can also be protective of physical health. There seems to be little room for "chance" in these narratives, which illustrates the apparent disparity between probabilistic descriptions and patients' need for explanations and meaning. Recent pleas for evidentiary pluralism and narrative-based medicine aim at closing this gap.

The prevalence of non-accidental trauma among children with polytrauma: A nationwide level-I trauma centre study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of non-accidental trauma (NAT) in children with polytrauma treated at level-I trauma centres (TC). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND: Data 6-10% Of children who present at the emergency department with injuries, sustain polytrauma. Polytrauma may result from either accidental (AT) or NAT, i.e. inflicted or neglect. The prevalence of NAT among children with polytrauma is currently unclear. METHODS: This is a retrospective study that included children (0-18 years) with an Injury Severity Score >15, who presented at one of the 11 Level-I trauma centers (TC) in the Netherlands between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2016. Outcomes were classified based on the conclusions of the Child Abuse and Neglect-team. Cases in which conclusions were unavailable and there was no clear accidental cause of injuries were reviewed by an expert panel. RESULTS: The study included 1623 children, 1452 (89%) were classified as AT, 171 (11%) as NAT; 39 (2,4%) inflicted and 132 (8,1%) neglect. Of pre-school aged children (<5 years) 41% sustained NAT (OR26.73, 95%CI 17.70-40.35), 35/342 (10%) inflicted and 104/342 (31%) neglect. Admission due to 'cardiopulmonary arrest' was the result of inflicted trauma (30% vs 0%,p < 0.001). NAT had a higher mortality rate (16% vs 10%, p = 0.006). Indicators of NAT were: (near-)drowning (OR10.74, 95%CI 5.94-19.41), burn (OR8.62, 95%CI 4.08-18.19) and fall from height (OR2.18, 95%CI 1.56-3.02). CONCLUSIONS: NAT was the cause of polytrauma in 11% of children in our nationwide level-I TC study; 41% of these polytrauma were the result of NAT experienced by preschool-aged children. Our data show the importance of awareness for NAT.

Clinical added value of MRI to CT in patients scheduled for local therapy of colorectal liver metastases (CAMINO): study protocol for an international multicentre prospective diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal computed tomography (CT) is the standard imaging method for patients with suspected colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) in the diagnostic workup for surgery or thermal ablation. Diffusion-weighted and gadoxetic-acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the liver is increasingly used to improve the detection rate and characterization of liver lesions. MRI is superior in detection and characterization of CRLM as compared to CT. However, it is unknown how MRI actually impacts patient management. The primary aim of the CAMINO study is to evaluate whether MRI has sufficient clinical added value to be routinely added to CT in the staging of CRLM. The secondary objective is to identify subgroups who benefit the most from additional MRI. METHODS: In this international multicentre prospective incremental diagnostic accuracy study, 298 patients with primary or recurrent CRLM scheduled for curative liver resection or thermal ablation based on CT staging will be enrolled from 17 centres across the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, and Italy. All study participants will undergo CT and diffusion-weighted and gadoxetic-acid enhanced MRI prior to local therapy. The local multidisciplinary team will provide two local therapy plans: first, based on CT-staging and second, based on both CT and MRI. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of clinically significant CRLM (CS-CRLM) detected by MRI not visible on CT. CS-CRLM are defined as liver lesions leading to a change in local therapeutical management. If MRI detects new CRLM in segments which would have been resected in the original operative plan, these are not considered CS-CRLM. It is hypothesized that MRI will lead to the detection of CS-CRLM in ≥10% of patients which is considered the minimal clinically important difference. Furthermore, a prediction model will be developed using multivariable logistic regression modelling to evaluate the predictive value of patient, tumor and procedural variables on finding CS-CRLM on MRI. DISCUSSION: The CAMINO study will clarify the clinical added value of MRI to CT in patients with CRLM scheduled for local therapy. This study will provide the evidence required for the implementation of additional MRI in the routine work-up of patients with primary and recurrent CRLM for local therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The CAMINO study was registered in the Netherlands National Trial Register under number NL8039 on September 20th 2019.

The windsor definition for hyperemesis gravidarum: A multistakeholder international consensus definition.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an international definition for hyperemesis gravidarum to assist in clinical diagnosis and harmonize hyperemesis gravidarum definition for study populations. STUDY DESIGN: A mixed-methods approach was used to identify potential hyperemesis gravidarum definition criteria (i.e. systematic review, semi-structured interviews and closed group sessions with patients and Project Steering Committee input). To reach consensus on the definition we used a web-based Delphi survey with two rounds, followed by a face-to-face consensus development meeting, held in Windsor UK, and a web-based consultation round, in which the provisional hyperemesis gravidarum definition was fed back to the stakeholders. Four stakeholder groups were identified 1) researchers; 2) women with lived experience of hyperemesis gravidarum and their families; 3) obstetric health professionals (obstetricians, gynecologists, midwives); and 4) other health professionals involved in care for women with hyperemesis gravidarum (general practitioners, dieticians, nurses). To reflect the opinions of the international community, stakeholders from countries in all global regions were invited to participate. RESULTS: Twenty-one identified potential criteria entered the Delphi survey. Of the 277 stakeholders invited, 178 completed round one, and 125 (70%) also completed round two. Twenty stakeholders attended the consensus development meeting, representing all stakeholder groups. The consultation round was completed by 96 (54%) stakeholders, of which 92% agreed with the definition as presented. The consensus definition for hyperemesis gravidarum consisted of: start of symptoms in early pregnancy (before 16 weeks gestational age); nausea and vomiting, at least one of which severe; inability to eat and/or drink normally; strongly limits daily living activities. Signs of dehydration were deemed contributory for the definition for hyperemesis gravidarum. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed definition for hyperemesis gravidarum will help clinical studies to achieve more uniformity, and ultimately increasing the value of evidence to inform patient care.

Discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis by ultrasound imaging, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.

BACKGROUND: Discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis is crucial. Patients with suspected complicated appendicitis are best treated by emergency surgery, whereas those with uncomplicated appendicitis may be treated with antibiotics alone. This study aimed to obtain summary estimates of the accuracy of ultrasound imaging, CT and MRI in discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted by an electronic search in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for studies describing the diagnostic accuracy of complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis. Studies were included if the population comprised adults, and surgery or pathology was used as a reference standard. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed with QUADAS-2. Bivariable logitnormal random-effect models were used to estimate mean sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Two studies reporting on ultrasound imaging, 11 studies on CT, one on MRI, and one on ultrasonography with conditional CT were included. Summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity in detecting complicated appendicitis could be calculated only for CT, because of lack of data for the other imaging modalities. For CT, mean sensitivity was 78 (95 per cent c.i. 64 to 88) per cent, and mean specificity was 91 (85 to 99) per cent. At a median prevalence of 25 per cent, the positive predictive value of CT for complicated appendicitis would be 74 per cent and its negative predictive value 93 per cent. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound imaging, CT and MRI have limitations in discriminating between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis. Although CT has far from perfect sensitivity, its negative predictive value for complicated appendicitis is high.

Planned Cesarean or planned vaginal delivery for twins: secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether there is a differential benefit of planned Cesarean delivery (CD) over planned vaginal delivery (VD) in women with a twin pregnancy and the first twin in cephalic presentation, depending on prespecified baseline maternal and pregnancy characteristics, and/or gestational age (GA) at delivery. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the Twin Birth Study, which included 2804 women with a twin pregnancy and the first twin (Twin A) in cephalic presentation between 32 + 0 and 38 + 6 weeks' gestation at 106 centers in 25 countries. Women were assigned randomly to either planned CD or planned VD. The main outcome measure was composite adverse perinatal outcome, defined as the occurrence of perinatal mortality or serious neonatal morbidity in at least one twin. The baseline maternal and pregnancy characteristics (markers) considered were maternal age, parity, history of CD, use of antenatal corticosteroids, estimated fetal weight (EFW) of Twin A, EFW of Twin B, > 25% difference in EFW between the twins, presentation of Twin B, chorionicity on ultrasound, method of conception, complications of pregnancy, ruptured membranes at randomization and GA at randomization. Separate logistic regression models were developed for each marker in order to model composite adverse perinatal outcome as a function of the specific marker, planned delivery mode and the interaction between these two terms. In addition, multivariable logistic regression analysis with backward variable elimination was performed separately in each arm of the trial. The association between planned mode of delivery and composite adverse perinatal outcome, according to GA at delivery, was assessed using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 2804 women initially randomized, 1391 were included in each study arm. None of the studied baseline markers was associated with a differential benefit of planned CD over planned VD in the rate of composite adverse perinatal outcome. GA at delivery was associated differentially with composite adverse perinatal outcome in the treatment arms (P for interaction < 0.001). Among pregnancies delivered at 32 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks, there was a trend towards a lower rate of composite adverse perinatal outcome in those in the planned-VD group compared with those in planned-CD group (29 (2.2%) vs 48 (3.6%) cases; odds ratio (OR) 0.62 (95% CI, 0.37-1.03)). In pregnancies delivered at or after 37 + 0 weeks, planned VD was associated with a significantly higher rate of composite adverse perinatal outcome, as compared with planned CD (23 (1.5%) vs 10 (0.7%) cases; OR, 2.25 (95% CI, 1.06-4.77)). CONCLUSION: The perinatal outcome of twin pregnancies with the first twin in cephalic presentation may differ depending on GA at delivery and planned mode of delivery. At 32-37 weeks, planned VD seems to be favorable, while, from around 37 weeks onwards, planned CD might be safer. The absolute risks of adverse perinatal outcomes at term are low and must be weighed against the increased maternal risks associated with planned CD. © 2019 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Systematic review of reporting benefits and harms of surgical interventions in randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Standardized reporting methods facilitate comparisons between studies. Reporting of data on benefits and harms of treatments in surgical RCTs should support clinical decision-making. Correct and complete reporting of the outcomes of clinical trials is mandatory to appreciate available evidence and to inform patients properly before asking informed consent. METHODS: RCTs published between January 2005 and January 2017 in 15 leading journals comparing a surgical treatment with any other treatment were reviewed systematically. The CONSORT checklist, including the extension for harms, was used to appraise the publications. Beneficial and harmful treatment outcomes, their definitions and their precision measures were extracted. RESULTS: Of 1200 RCTs screened, 88 trials were included. For the differences in effect size of beneficial outcomes, 68 per cent of the trials reported a P value only but not a 95 per cent confidence interval. For harmful effects, this was 67 per cent. Only five of the 88 trials (6 per cent) reported a number needed to treat, and no study a number needed to harm. Only 61 per cent of the trials reported on both the beneficial and harmful outcomes of the intervention studied in the same paper. CONCLUSION: Despite CONSORT guidelines, current reporting of benefits and harms in surgical trials does not facilitate clear communication of treatment outcomes with patients. Researchers, reviewers and journal editors should ensure proper reporting of treatment benefits and harms in trials.

ANTECEDENTES: Los métodos para la estandarización en la descripción de los resultados facilitan la comparación entre estudios. La toma de decisiones clínicas debe estar respaldada por los resultados que se obtienen en los ensayos clínicos aleatorizados (randomized clinical trials, RCTs) quirúrgicos sobre los efectos beneficiosos y nocivos de los tratamientos. Es obligado que la descripción de los resultados de los ensayos clínicos sea correcta y completa a fin de estimar la evidencia disponible y poder informar a los pacientes de forma adecuada antes de solicitar el consentimiento informado. MÉTODOS: Se revisaron de forma sistemática los RCTs publicados entre enero de 2005 y enero de 2017 en las 15 revistas principales en los que se comparaba un tratamiento quirúrgico con cualquier otro. Para evaluar las publicaciones, se utilizó la guía de comprobación del CONsolidated Standard of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), haciéndola extensiva también a los efectos nocivos. Se obtuvieron los resultados sobre los efectos beneficiosos y nocivos del tratamiento, sus definiciones y sus medidas de precisión. RESULTADOS: De 1.200 RCTs seleccionados, se incluyeron 88 ensayos. Para comparar las diferencias de los efectos beneficiosos de los resultados, en el 68% de los ensayos se aportó sólo un valor de la P pero no el intervalo de confianza del 95%. Para efectos nocivos, el porcentaje fue del 67%. En sólo 5 de 88 ensayos (6%) se informó del número de pacientes que es necesario tratar (number needed to treat, NNT), y en ningún estudio se precisó el número de pacientes que es necesario para perjudicar (number needed to harm, NNH). En sólo el 61% de los ensayos se informó de los resultados beneficiosos y nocivos de la intervención analizada en el mismo artículo. CONCLUSIÓN: A pesar de la guía CONSORT, la descripción actual de los efectos beneficiosos y nocivos en los ensayos quirúrgicos no permite obtener una clara información del resultado del tratamiento obtenido en los pacientes. Los investigadores, los revisores y los editores de las revistas deben garantizar una descripción adecuada los beneficios y efectos nocivos del tratamiento en los ensayos clínicos.

Natural conception rates in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility scheduled for fertility treatment: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the natural conception rate over the course of 12 months in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility who are scheduled for fertility treatment and have a predicted unfavourable prognosis for natural conception? SUMMARY ANSWER: The natural conception rate over the course of 12 months in couples who were allocated to treatment was estimated to be 24.5% (95% CI: 20-29%). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: After starting treatment, couples often perceive unsuccessful cycles as evidence of definitive failure even though they are still able to conceive naturally in between and after treatment. The magnitude of the natural conception rate for couples who chose to commence treatment is unknown, as is whether the calculated prognosis before commencing treatment is still applicable. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial including couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception. Couples were allocated to either three cycles IVF with single embryo transfer (SET), six cycles of IVF in a modified natural cycle (MNC) or six cycles of IUI with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH). The detailed data collection in this trial allowed us to study the conception rates in periods that couples were not receiving treatment. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: We split the dataset into periods during which couples were treated and periods during which they were not treated. Couples could conceive naturally in the periods before, in between and after treatment cycles. The outcome was ongoing pregnancy, thus natural conception rate refers to natural conception leading to ongoing pregnancy. We performed a Cox proportional hazards analysis with female age, duration of subfertility and a time-varying covariate with four categories: IVF-SET, IVF-MNC, IUI-COH and no treatment. We used this Cox model to estimate the natural conception rate over 12 months of no treatment. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Out of 602 included couples, there were 342 ongoing pregnancies, of which 77 (23%) resulted from natural conception. The estimated natural conception rate over 12 months was 24.5% (95% CI: 20-29%) on cohort level. Estimated rates for female age varying between 18 and 38 years and duration of subfertility between 1 and 3 years ranged from 22 to 35%. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We considered couples at risk for natural conception when not receiving treatment, whereas they might not have had periovulatory sexual intercourse. As couples were scheduled for treatment, it is possible that these couples were less inclined to try to conceive naturally, potentially leading to an underestimation of their natural conception rate if they kept trying to conceive. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Couples with unexplained subfertility who are about to start fertility treatment, still have about a one in four chance of ongoing pregnancy due to natural conception over 12 months. This information can add to the counselling of couples who commenced fertility treatment after failed cycles and to emphasize not to cease their natural attempts. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The INeS trial was supported by a grant from ZonMW, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (120620027), and a grant from Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, the Dutch association of health care insurers (09-003). The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. No other potential conflicts of interest reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The INeS trial was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR 939).

Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic testing strategies including cervical-length measurement and fibronectin testing in women with symptoms of preterm labor.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of combining cervical-length (CL) measurement and fetal fibronectin (fFN) testing in women with symptoms of preterm labor between 24 and 34 weeks' gestation. METHODS: This was a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating seven test-treatment strategies based on CL measurement and/or fFN testing in women with symptoms of preterm labor from a societal perspective, in which neonatal outcomes and costs were weighted. Estimates of disease prevalence, test accuracy and costs were based on two recently performed nationwide cohort studies in The Netherlands. RESULTS: Strategies using fFN testing and CL measurement separately to predict preterm delivery are associated with higher costs and incidence of adverse neonatal outcomes compared with strategies that combine both tests. Additional fFN testing when CL is 15-30 mm was considered cost effective, leading to a cost saving of €3919 per woman when compared with a treat-all strategy, with a small deterioration in neonatal health outcomes, namely one additional perinatal death and 21 adverse outcomes per 10 000 women with signs of preterm labor (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios €39 million and €1.9 million, respectively). Implementing this strategy in The Netherlands, a country with about 180 000 deliveries annually, could lead to an annual cost saving of between €2.4 million and €7.6 million, with only a small deterioration in neonatal health outcomes. CONCLUSION: In women with symptoms of preterm labor at 24-34 weeks' gestation, performing additional fFN testing when CL is between 15 and 30 mm is a viable and cost-saving strategy. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Evaluation of an online family history tool for identifying hereditary and familial colorectal cancer.

Identifying a hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndrome or familial CRC (FCC) in a CRC patient may enable the patient and relatives to enroll in surveillance protocols. As these individuals are insufficiently recognized, we evaluated an online family history tool, consisting of a patient-administered family history questionnaire and an automated genetic referral recommendation, to facilitate the identification of patients with hereditary CRC or FCC. Between 2015 and 2016, all newly diagnosed CRC patients in five Dutch outpatient clinics, were included in a trial with a stepped-wedge design, when first visiting the clinic. Each hospital continued standard procedures for identifying patients at risk (control strategy) and then, after a predetermined period, switched to offering the family history tool to included patients (intervention strategy). After considering the tool-based recommendation, the health care provider could decide on and arrange the referral. Primary outcome was the relative number of CRC patients who received screening or surveillance recommendations for themselves or relatives because of hereditary CRC or FCC, provided by genetic counseling. The intervention effect was evaluated using a logit-linear model. With the tool, 46/489 (9.4%) patients received a screening or surveillance recommendation, compared to 35/292 (12.0%) in the control group. In the intention-to-treat-analysis, accounting for time trends and hospital effects, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.58). A family history tool does not necessarily assist in increasing the number of CRC patients and relatives enrolled in screening or surveillance recommendations for hereditary CRC or FCC. Other interventions should be considered.

Prognostic accuracy of cerebroplacental ratio and middle cerebral artery Doppler for adverse perinatal outcome: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Doppler ultrasonographic assessment of the cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) and middle cerebral artery (MCA) is widely used as an adjunct to umbilical artery (UA) Doppler to identify fetuses at risk of adverse perinatal outcome. However, reported estimates of its accuracy vary considerably. The aim of this study was to review systematically the prognostic accuracies of CPR and MCA Doppler in predicting adverse perinatal outcome, and to compare these with UA Doppler, in order to identify whether CPR and MCA Doppler evaluation are of added value to UA Doppler. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched, from inception to June 2016, for studies on the prognostic accuracy of UA Doppler compared with CPR and/or MCA Doppler in the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome in women with a singleton pregnancy of any risk profile. Risk of bias and concerns about applicability were assessed using the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) tool. Meta-analysis was performed for multiple adverse perinatal outcomes. Using hierarchal summary receiver-operating characteristics meta-regression models, the prognostic accuracy of CPR vs MCA Doppler was compared indirectly, and CPR and MCA Doppler vs UA Doppler compared directly. RESULTS: The search identified 4693 articles, of which 128 studies (involving 47 748 women) were included. Risk of bias or suboptimal reporting was detected in 120/128 studies (94%) and substantial heterogeneity was found, which limited subgroup analyses for fetal growth and gestational age. A large variation was observed in reported sensitivities and specificities, and in thresholds used. CPR outperformed UA Doppler in the prediction of composite adverse outcome (as defined in the included studies) (P < 0.001) and emergency delivery for fetal distress (P = 0.003), but was comparable to UA Doppler for the other outcomes. MCA Doppler performed significantly worse than did UA Doppler in the prediction of low Apgar score (P = 0.017) and emergency delivery for fetal distress (P = 0.034). CPR outperformed MCA Doppler in the prediction of composite adverse outcome (P < 0.001) and emergency delivery for fetal distress (P = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Calculating the CPR with MCA Doppler can add value to UA Doppler assessment in the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome in women with a singleton pregnancy. However, it is unclear to which subgroup of pregnant women this applies. The effectiveness of the CPR in guiding clinical management needs to be evaluated in clinical trials. © 2017 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[A fact-free medicine? Report by Dutch Council for Public Health and Society is slap in the face]. / Een feitenvrije geneeskunde?

A recently released report by the Dutch Council for Public Health and Society ('Raad voor Volksgezondheid en Samenleving') is subtitled "About the illusion of evidence-based practice in healthcare". The author argues that this report is a sign of the times, a period of "post-truth medicine" and "alternative facts", in which "science offers nothing but a reduction". Although the report rightly - but superfluously - argues that having an evidence base is insufficient for delivering quality care (no decisions without considering context), its depiction of the illusory nature of evidence-based practice represents a brutal slap in the face of all those who turn to sound clinical and biomedical research to back up or refute claims about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions.

IVF or IUI as first-line treatment in unexplained subfertility: the conundrum of treatment selection markers.

STUDY QUESTION: Are there treatment selection markers that could aid in identifying couples, with unexplained or mild male subfertility, who would have better chances of a healthy child with IVF with single embryo transfer (IVF-SET) than with IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: We did not find any treatment selection markers that were associated with better chances of a healthy child with IVF-SET instead of IUI-OS in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A recent trial, comparing IVF-SET to IUI-OS, found no evidence of a difference between live birth rates and multiple pregnancy rates. It was suggested that IUI-OS should remain the first-line treatment instead of IVF-SET in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and female age between 18 and 38 years. The question remains whether there are some couples that may have higher pregnancy chances if treated with IVF-SET instead of IUI. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed our analyses on data from the INeS trial, where couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception were randomly allocated to IVF-SET, IVF in a modified natural cycle or IUI-OS. In view of the aim of this study, we only used data of the comparison between IVF-SET (201 couples) and IUI-OS (207 couples). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We pre-defined the following baseline characteristics as potential treatment selection markers: female age, ethnicity, smoking status, type of subfertility (primary/secondary), duration of subfertility, BMI, pre-wash total motile count and Hunault prediction score. For each potential treatment selection marker, we explored the association with the chances of a healthy child after IVF-SET and IUI-OS and tested if there was an interaction with treatment. Given the exploratory nature of our analysis, we used a P-value of 0.1. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: None of the markers were associated with higher chances of a healthy child from IVF-SET compared to IUI-OS (P-value for interaction >0.10). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Since this is the first large study that looked at potential treatment selection markers for IVF-SET compared to IUI-OS, we had no data on which to base a power calculation. The sample size was limited, making it difficult to detect any smaller associations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We could not identify couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility who would have had higher chances of a healthy child from immediate IVF-SET than from IUI-OS. As in the original trial IUI-OS had similar effectiveness and was less costly compared to IVF-SET, IUI-OS should remain the preferred first-line treatment in these couples. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and a grant from the Netherlands' association of health care insurers. There are no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR939).

[On the timing of randomised studies: the sooner initiated, the better?] / Over de timing van gerandomiseerde trials.

The study design for randomised double-blind studies is powerful. Randomisation and blinding ensure that the groups that are compared are truly exchangeable. Any differences in health outcomes can be attributed rightfully to the one aspect on which the study groups differ: the treatment. In this commentary, we argue that the use of this powerful study design at the wrong moment can lead to undesirable situations.

Prediction of disease-free survival using relative change in FDG-uptake early during neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for potentially curable esophageal cancer: A prospective cohort study.

18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) has been investigated as a tool for monitoring response to neoadjuvant chemo- and chemoradiotherapy (CT and CRT, respectively) and as a predictor for survival in patients with esophageal cancer. In contrast to patients who undergo neoadjuvant CT, it is not known whether patients who are clinically identified as responders after neoadjuvant CRT show better disease-free survival (DFS) than patients identified as nonresponders. The aim of the study was to determine the predictive value of FDG-uptake measured prior to and early during neoadjuvant CRT. Patients treated with neoadjuvant CRT between 2004 and 2009 within a randomized trial were included. FDG-uptake was measured at baseline and after 14 days of CRT. According to the PERCIST-criteria, patients were allocated to have metabolic response, stable disease, or progression. Patients were followed until recurrence of disease or death. The predictive value of FDG-PET was determined with univariable and multivariable analysis in patients who underwent potentially curative surgery. One-hundred and six patients were included in the analysis. Minimal follow-up for surviving patients was 60 months. No significant differences in DFS were found between patients with metabolic response, stable disease, or progression, with 5-year DFS rates of 66%, 53%, and 67%, respectively (P = 0.39). Relative change in FDG uptake after 14 days of CRT is not associated with DFS in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. These measurements should not be used for prognostication in this specific group of patients.

Adding family history to faecal immunochemical testing increases the detection of advanced neoplasia in a colorectal cancer screening programme.

BACKGROUND: Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has suboptimal sensitivity for detecting advanced neoplasia. To increase its performance, FIT could be combined with other risk factors. AIM: To evaluate the incremental yield of a screening programme using a positive FIT or a CRC family history, to offer a diagnostic colonoscopy. METHODS: For this post hoc analysis, data were collected in the colonoscopy arm of a colonoscopy or colonography for screening study. In this study, 6600 randomly selected, asymptomatic men and women (50-75 years) were invited for screening colonoscopy. 1112 Participants completed a FIT and a questionnaire prior to colonoscopy. We compared the yield of FIT-only and FIT combined with CRC family history, defined as having one or more first-degree relatives with CRC. RESULTS: At a 10 µg Hb/g faeces FIT-positivity threshold the combined strategy would increase the yield from 36 (3.2%; CI: 2.4-4.5%) to 53 (4.8%; CI: 3.7-6.2%) cases of advanced neoplasia, at the expense of 148 additional negative colonoscopies. Sensitivity in detecting advanced neoplasia would increase from 36% (CI: 26-46%) to 52% (CI: 42-63%), whereas specificity would decrease from 93% (CI: 92-95%) to 79% (CI: 76-81%). The strategy will be preferred if one accepts 8.8 false positives for every additional participant in whom advanced neoplasia can be detected. CONCLUSIONS: Offering colonoscopy to those with a positive FIT or CRC family history increases the yield of a FIT-based screening programme. Depending on the number of negative colonoscopies one accepts, this combined approach can be considered for improving CRC screening.

Is IVF-served two different ways-more cost-effective than IUI with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation?

STUDY QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization (IVF) with conventional ovarian stimulation, single embryo transfer (SET) and subsequent cryocycles or IVF in a modified natural cycle (MNC) compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH) as a first-line treatment in couples with unexplained subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis on natural conception?. SUMMARY ANSWER: Both IVF strategies are significantly more expensive when compared with IUI-COH, without being significantly more effective. In the comparison between IVF-MNC and IUI-COH, the latter is the dominant strategy. Whether IVF-SET is cost-effective depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional healthy child. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-COH and IVF, either after conventional ovarian stimulation or in a MNC, are used as first-line treatments for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. As IUI-COH is less invasive, this treatment is usually offered before proceeding to IVF. Yet, as conventional IVF with SET may lead to higher pregnancy rates in fewer cycles for a lower multiple pregnancy rate, some have argued to start with IVF instead of IUI-COH. In addition, IVF in the MNC is considered to be a more patient friendly and less costly form of IVF. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized noninferiority trial. Between January 2009 and February 2012, 602 couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis on natural conception were allocated to three cycles of IVF-SET including frozen embryo transfers, six cycles of IVF-MNC or six cycles of IUI-COH. These couples were followed until 12 months after randomization. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We collected data on resource use related to treatment, medication and pregnancy from the case report forms. We calculated unit costs from various sources. For each of the three strategies, we calculated the mean costs and effectiveness. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH and for IVF-MNC compared with IUI-COH. Nonparametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were 104 healthy children (52%) born in the IVF-SET group, 83 (43%) the IVF-MNC group and 97 (47%) in the IUI-COH group. The mean costs per couple were €7187 for IVF-SET, €8206 for IVF-MNC and €5070 for IUI-COH. Compared with IUI-COH, the costs for IVF-SET and IVF-MNC were significantly higher (mean differences €2117; 95% CI: €1544-€2657 and €3136, 95% CI: €2519-€3754, respectively).The ICER for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH was €43 375 for the birth of an additional healthy child. In the comparison of IVF-MNC to IUI-COH, the latter was the dominant strategy, i.e. more effective at lower costs. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We only report on direct health care costs. The present analysis is limited to 12 months. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since we found no evidence in support of offering IVF as a first-line strategy in couples with unexplained and mild subfertility, IUI-COH should remain the treatment of first choice. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, (120620027) and a grant from Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, the Netherlands' association of health care insurers (09-003). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939.

A simple decision rule including D-dimer to reduce the need for computed tomography scanning in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: An 'unlikely' clinical decision rule with a negative D-dimer result safely excludes pulmonary embolism (PE) in 30% of presenting patients. We aimed to simplify this diagnostic approach and to increase its efficiency. METHODS: Data for 723 consecutive patients with suspected PE were analyzed (prevalence of PE, 22%). After constructing a logistic regression model with the D-dimer test result and items from the Wells' score, we identified the most prevalent combinations of influential items and selected new D-dimer positivity thresholds. The performance was separately validated with data from 2785 consecutive patients with suspected PE. RESULTS: Three Wells items significantly added incremental value to the D-dimer test: hemoptysis, signs of deep vein thrombosis and 'PE most likely'. Based on the most frequent combinations of these three items, we identified two groups: (i) none of these three items positive (41%); (ii) one or more of these items positive (59%). When applying a 1000 µg/L D-dimer threshold in group 1 and 500 µg/L in group 2, PE could be excluded without CT scanning in 36%, at a false-negative rate of 1.2% (95%, 0.04-3.3%). In the validation set, these proportions were 46% and 1.9% (95% CI, 1.2-2.7%), respectively. Using the conventional Wells score with a normal D-dimer result, these rates were, respectively, 22% and 0.6% (95% CI, 0.10-2.4%). CONCLUSION: Combining Wells items with the D-dimer test resulted in a simplified decision rule, which reduces the need for CT scanning in patients with suspected PE. A prospective validation is required before it can be implemented in clinical practice.

Comparison of Imaging Strategies with Conditional versus Immediate Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in Patients with Clinical Suspicion of Acute Appendicitis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of conditional computed tomography (CT), i.e. CT when initial ultrasound findings are negative or inconclusive, and immediate CT for patients with suspected appendicitis. METHODS: Data were collected within a prospective diagnostic accuracy study on imaging in adults with acute abdominal pain. All patients underwent ultrasound and CT, read by different observers who were blinded from the other modality. Only patients with clinical suspicion of appendicitis were included. An expert panel assigned a final diagnosis to each patient after 6 months of follow-up (clinical reference standard). RESULTS: A total of 422 patients were included with final diagnosis appendicitis in 251 (60 %). For 199 patients (47 %), ultrasound findings were inconclusive or negative. Conditional CT imaging correctly identified 241 of 251 (96 %) appendicitis cases (95 %CI, 92 % to 98 %), versus 238 (95 %) with immediate CT (95 %CI, 91 % to 97 %). The specificity of conditional CT imaging was lower: 77 % (95 %CI, 70 % to 83 %) versus 87 % for immediate CT (95 %CI, 81 % to 91 %). CONCLUSION: A conditional CT strategy correctly identifies as many patients with appendicitis as an immediate CT strategy, and can halve the number of CTs needed. However, conditional CT imaging results in more false positives. KEY POINTS: • Conditional CT (CT after negative/inconclusive ultrasound findings) can be used for suspected appendicitis. • Half the number of CT examinations is needed with a conditional strategy. • Conditional CT correctly identifies as many patients with appendicitis as immediate CT. • Conditional imaging results in more false positive appendicitis cases.

Validation of an online questionnaire for identifying people at risk of familial and hereditary colorectal cancer.

We developed and validated an online questionnaire to document familial cancer history, in order to facilitate the detection of persons with a familial or hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. The development of the self-administered online questionnaire for the assessment of familial and hereditary CRC risk was based on nationwide criteria for referral to genetic specialists due to a Lynch syndrome suspicion, as well as existing criteria for surveillance colonoscopies because of an increased risk of familial CRC. The questionnaire was validated at a private colonoscopy center. Patients scheduled for colonoscopy were enrolled (n = 150). Performance of the questionnaire was assessed by comparing referrals based on questionnaire data against referral decisions based on full pedigree data. In a second validation phase, referrals based on questionnaire data were compared with referrals based on data collected in a telephone interview. We also calculated inter-observer agreement in referral decisions. In the first validation phase, the questionnaire had a sensitivity of 90% (95% CI 55-98%) at a specificity of 98% (95% CI 87-100%) in identifying persons qualifying for referral. In the second validation phase, sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 63-100) at a specificity of 97% (95% CI 91-99%). In both validation phases an inter-observer agreement of 100% in referral decisions was achieved. The online questionnaire has a high sensitivity and specificity in identifying persons qualifying for referral because of suspected Lynch syndrome or familial CRC. Implementation of this tool in colonoscopy clinics can facilitate the detection of patients with hereditary or familial CRC.