Available evidence suggests that screening for some diseases in community pharmacies is feasible. More studies are needed to compare effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacy-based screening with screening by other providers. Strategies to improve screening participants' adherence to pharmacist advice also need to be explored. This systematic review will help to inform future studies wishing to develop community pharmacy-based screening interventions.

No abstract

 There is a paucity of epidemiological data on chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in women particularly beyond the reproductive age. CPP, like other chronic pain conditions, may involve biological, psychological and social factors but attention to date has focussed on biological factors in disease aetiology.What does this study add: -Heightened somatic awareness may be more strongly associated with CPP in women of post-reproductive years compared to women of reproductive years. 2 Two subgroups of CPP cases can be differentiated by the absence/presence of psychosocial distress suggesting that stratified management approach may be more efficient. 3 AbstractBackground: Epidemiological studies on chronic pelvic pain (CPP) have focused on women

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is common in women of reproductive age and has a significant impact on quality of life, work efficiency and healthcare utilization. CPP can be a manifestation of many different, often multifactorial conditions, and in the absence of an identified cause, the management can be particularly challenging. High quality epidemiological studies would improve the understanding of CPP and identify risk factors which may be targeted for the development of appropriate management strategies. This review focuses on what is known about the prevalence, risk factors, individual and societal burden of CPP and outlines important management strategies.

Strategies to identify and mitigate publication bias and outcome reporting bias are frequently adopted in systematic reviews of clinical interventions but it is not clear how often these are applied in systematic reviews relating to quantitative health services and delivery research (HSDR). We examined whether these biases are mentioned and/or otherwise assessed in HSDR systematic reviews, and evaluated associating factors to inform future practice. We randomly selected 200 quantitative HSDR systematic reviews published in the English language from 2007-2017 from the Health Systems Evidence database (www.healthsystemsevidence.org). We extracted data on factors that may influence whether or not authors mention and/or assess publication bias or outcome reporting bias. We found that 43% (n = 85) of the reviews mentioned publication bias and 10% (n = 19) formally assessed it. Outcome reporting bias was mentioned and assessed in 17% (n = 34) of all the systematic reviews. Insufficient number of studies, heterogeneity and lack of pre-registered protocols were the most commonly reported impediments to assessing the biases. In multivariable logistic regression models, both mentioning and formal assessment of publication bias were associated with: inclusion of a meta-analysis; being a review of intervention rather than association studies; higher journal impact factor, and; reporting the use of systematic review guidelines. Assessment of outcome reporting bias was associated with: being an intervention review; authors reporting the use of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE), and; inclusion of only controlled trials. Publication bias and outcome reporting bias are infrequently assessed in HSDR systematic reviews. This may reflect the inherent heterogeneity of HSDR evidence and different methodological approaches to synthesising the evidence, lack of awareness of such biases, limits of current tools and lack of pre-registered study protocols for assessing such biases. Strategies to help raise awareness of the biases, and methods to

Background: Publication and related biases (including publication bias, time-lag bias, outcome reporting bias and p-hacking) have been well documented in clinical research, but relatively little is known about their presence and extent in health services research (HSR). This paper aims to systematically review evidence concerning publication and related bias in quantitative HSR. Methods: Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, HMIC, CINAHL, Web of Science, Health Systems Evidence, Cochrane EPOC Review Group and several websites were searched to July 2018. Information was obtained from: (1) Methodological studies that set out to investigate publication and related biases in HSR; (2) Systematic reviews of HSR topics which examined such biases as part of the review process. Relevant information was extracted from included studies by one reviewer and checked by another. Studies were appraised according to commonly accepted scientific principles due to lack of suitable checklists. Data were synthesised narratively. Results: After screening 6155 citations, four methodological studies investigating publication bias in HSR and 184 systematic reviews of HSR topics (including three comparing published with unpublished evidence) were examined. Evidence suggestive of publication bias was reported in some of the methodological studies, but evidence presented was very weak, limited in both quality and scope. Reliable data on outcome reporting bias and p-hacking were scant. HSR systematic reviews in which published literature was compared with unpublished evidence found significant differences in the estimated intervention effects or association in some but not all cases. Conclusions: Methodological research on publication and related biases in HSR is sparse. Evidence from available literature suggests that such biases may exist in HSR but their scale and impact are difficult to estimate for various reasons discussed in this paper. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016052333.

There was a dose response effect in the inheritance pattern of preeclampsia with the highest risk in women born of preeclamptic pregnancies. Gestational hypertension showed similar increased risk with maternal gestational hypertension and preeclampsia.

This large-scale study demonstrates that regardless of the pain definition used, the magnitude of association between pain and other associated symptoms of fibromyalgia is similar. This finding supports the continued collection of both when classifying fibromyalgia, but highlights the fact that pain may not require to follow the definition outlined within the 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria.