DVERSE DRUG EVENTS (ADES) are estimated to injure or kill more than 770 000 people in hospitals annually. 1 Prescribing errors are the most frequent source. 2-5 Computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems are widely viewed as crucial for reducing prescribing errors 2,3,6-17 and saving hundreds of billions in annual costs. 18,19 Computerized physician order entry system advocates include researchers, clinicians, hospital administrators, pharmacists, business councils, the Institute of Medicine, state legislatures, health care agencies, and the lay public. 2,3,6-10,12,14-17,20-22 These systems are expected to become more prevalent in response to resident working-hour limitations and related care discontinuities 23 and will supposedly offset causes (eg, job dissatisfaction) and effects (eg, ADEs) of nursing shortages. 24,25 Such a system is increasingly recommended for outpatient practices (BOX). Adoption of CPOE perhaps gathered such strong support because its promise is so great, effects of medica-See also pp 1223 and 1261.

The purpose of this study was to determine the levels of change on standard pain scales that represent clinically important differences to patients. Data from analgesic studies are often difficult to interpret because the clinical importance of the results is not obvious. Differences between groups, as summarized by a change in mean values over time, can be difficult to apply to clinical care. Baseline scores vary widely and group mean differences could reflect large changes in a few patients, small changes in many patients, or any combination of these outcomes. Determination of the proportion of patients who have a clinically important improvement in their pain would provide a more interpretable result with direct clinical implications. However, determining a clinically important outcome requires information about the degree of change over time that is clinically important. Data from the titration phase of a multiple cross-over randomized clinical trial of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) for the treatment of cancer-related breakthrough pain were re-analyzed to examine the differences in pain scores between treatment episodes that did and did not yield adequate pain relief. The scales evaluated were absolute pain intensity difference (PID, 0-10 scale), percentage pain intensity difference (PID%, 0-100% scale), pain relief (PR, 0 (none), 1 (slight), 2 (moderate), 3 (lots), 4 (complete)), sum of the pain intensity difference (SPID over 60 min), percentage of maximum total pain relief (% Max TOTPAR over 60 min), and global medication performance (0 (poor), 1 (fair), 2 (good), 3 (very good), 4 (excellent)). Adequate relief was defined by the patient's decision not to use another dose of opioid medication as a rescue, in addition to the study medication, to treat each painful episode. One hundred thirty OTFC naive patients contributed data on 1268 episodes of breakthrough pain. The scales that were converted to a percentage change yielded the best accuracy in predicting adequate relief, with balanced sensitivity and specificity. The best cut-off point for both the % Max TOTPAR and the PID% was 33%. The best cut-off points for the absolute scales were absolute pain intensity difference of 2, pain relief of 2 (moderate), and SPID of 2. The global medication performance of 2 (good) had excellent values as well. This study presents data-derived cut-off points for the changes in several pain scales, each reflecting the clinically important improvement for patients treating breakthrough cancer pain episodes with OTFC. Confirmation in other patient populations and different pain syndromes will be needed. The use of consistent clinically important cut-off points as the primary outcome in future pain therapy clinical trials will enhance their validity, comparability, and clinical applicability.

A B S T R A C T PurposeEndometrial cancers have long been divided into estrogen-dependent type I and the less common clinically aggressive estrogen-independent type II. Little is known about risk factors for type II tumors because most studies lack sufficient cases to study these much less common tumors separately. We examined whether so-called classical endometrial cancer risk factors also influence the risk of type II tumors. Patients and MethodsIndividual-level data from 10 cohort and 14 case-control studies from the Epidemiology of Endometrial Cancer Consortium were pooled. A total of 14,069 endometrial cancer cases and 35,312 controls were included. We classified endometrioid (n ϭ 7,246), adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified (n ϭ 4,830), and adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation (n ϭ 777) as type I tumors and serous (n ϭ 508) and mixed cell (n ϭ 346) as type II tumors. ResultsParity, oral contraceptive use, cigarette smoking, age at menarche, and diabetes were associated with type I and type II tumors to similar extents. Body mass index, however, had a greater effect on type I tumors than on type II tumors: odds ratio (OR) per 2 kg/m 2 increase was 1.20 (95% CI, 1.19 to 1.21) for type I and 1.12 (95% CI, 1.09 to 1.14) for type II tumors (P heterogeneity Ͻ .0001). Risk factor patterns for high-grade endometrioid tumors and type II tumors were similar. ConclusionThe results of this pooled analysis suggest that the two endometrial cancer types share many common etiologic factors. The etiology of type II tumors may, therefore, not be completely estrogen independent, as previously believed.

No abstract