Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Background & aims Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, affecting about 10% of the general population globally. The aim of this consensus was to develop guidelines for the management of IBS. Methods A systematic literature search identified studies on the management of IBS. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Statements were developed through an iterative online platform and then finalized and voted on by a multidisciplinary group of clinicians and a patient. Results Consensus was reached on 28 of 31 statements. Irritable bowel syndrome is diagnosed based on symptoms; serological testing is suggested to exclude celiac disease, but routine testing for C-reactive protein (CRP), fecal calprotectin or food allergies is not recommended. A trial of a low fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, polyols (FODMAP) diet is suggested, while a gluten-free diet is not. Psyllium, but not wheat bran, supplementation may help reduce symptoms. Alternative therapies such as peppermint oil and probiotics are suggested, while herbal therapies and acupuncture are not. Cognitive behavioural therapy and hypnotherapy are suggested psychological therapies. Among the suggested or recommended pharmacological therapies are antispasmodics, certain antidepressants, eluxadoline, lubiprostone, and linaclotide. Loperamide, cholestyramine and osmotic laxatives are not recommended for overall IBS symptoms. The nature of the IBS symptoms (diarrhea-predominant or constipation-predominant) should be considered in the choice of pharmacological treatments. Conclusions Patients with IBS may benefit from a multipronged, individualized approach to treatment, including dietary modifications, psychological and pharmacological therapies.

Background-Use of cardiovascular disease risk calculators is often recommended by guidelines, but research on consistency in risk assessment among calculators is limited. Method and Results-A search of PubMed and Google was performed. Five clinicians selected 25 calculators by independent review. Hypothetical patients were created with the use of 7 risk factors (age, sex, smoking, blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein, total cholesterol, and diabetes mellitus) dichotomized to high and low, generating 2 7 patients (128 total). These patients were assessed by each calculator by 2 clinicians. Risk estimates (and assigned risk categories) were compared among calculators. Selected calculators were from 8 countries, used 5-or 10-year predictions, and estimated either cardiovascular disease or coronary heart disease. With the use of 3 risk categories (low, medium, and high), the 25 calculators categorized each patient into a mean of 2.2 different categories, and 41% of unique patients were assigned across all 3 risk categories. Risk category agreement between pairs of calculators was 67%. This did not improve when analysis was limited to just the 10-year cardiovascular disease calculators. In nondiabetics, the highest calculated risk estimate from a calculator averaged 4.9 times higher (range, 1.9-13.3) than the lowest calculated risk estimate for the same patient. This did not change meaningfully for diabetics or when the analysis was limited to 10-year cardiovascular disease calculators. Conclusions-The decision as to which calculator to use for risk estimation has an important impact on both risk categorization and absolute risk estimates. This has broad implications for guidelines recommending therapies based on specific calculators.

Objective To determine the quality of health recommendations and claims made on popular medical talk shows.Design Prospective observational study. Setting Mainstream television media. SourcesInternationally syndicated medical television talk shows that air daily (The Dr Oz Show and The Doctors). Interventions Investigators randomly selected 40 episodes of each ofThe Dr Oz Show and The Doctors from early 2013 and identified and evaluated all recommendations made on each program. A group of experienced evidence reviewers independently searched for, and evaluated as a team, evidence to support 80 randomly selected recommendations from each show. Main outcomes measuresPercentage of recommendations that are supported by evidence as determined by a team of experienced evidence reviewers. Secondary outcomes included topics discussed, the number of recommendations made on the shows, and the types and details of recommendations that were made. ResultsWe could find at least a case study or better evidence to support 54% (95% confidence interval 47% to 62%) of the 160 recommendations (80 from each show). For recommendations in The Dr Oz Show, evidence supported 46%, contradicted 15%, and was not found for 39%. For recommendations in The Doctors, evidence supported 63%, contradicted 14%, and was not found for 24%. Believable or somewhat believable evidence supported 33% of the recommendations on The Dr Oz Show and 53% on The Doctors. On average, The Dr Oz Show had 12 recommendations per episode and The Doctors 11. The most common recommendation category on The Dr Oz Show was dietary advice (39%) and on The Doctors was to consult a healthcare provider (18%). A specific benefit was described for 43% and 41% of the recommendations made on the shows respectively. The magnitude of benefit was described for 17% of the recommendations on The Dr Oz Show and 11% on The Doctors. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest accompanied 0.4% of recommendations. ConclusionsRecommendations made on medical talk shows often lack adequate information on specific benefits or the magnitude of the effects of these benefits. Approximately half of the recommendations have either no evidence or are contradicted by the best available evidence. Potential conflicts of interest are rarely addressed. The public should be skeptical about recommendations made on medical talk shows.Additional details of methods used and changes made to study protocol

Over the past decade, a large body of observational evidence has suggested an association between lower vitamin D status (25-hydroxyvitamin D) and multiple acute and chronic disorders, including cancer, multiple sclerosis, depression and respiratory tract infections. This evidence has fostered the hypothesis that increasing vitamin D intake may treat and prevent such disorders. Our objective was to perform a critical analysis of the highestlevel evidence for ten common beliefs regarding vitamin D for the prevention of falls, fractures and respiratory tract infections, the reduction of cancer incidence/mortality and overall mortality, and the prevention or treatment of depression/mental well-being, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis, as well as maximum dosing and regular testing. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and PubMed (up to August 2014) for randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews/ meta-analyses based on those studies. All searches were performed, all evidence reviewed and each section written by at least two authors. The evidence shows that vitamin D supplementation provides some benefit in fracture prevention (likely ∼10-15 % relative reduction), particularly at a dose ≥800 IU and with calcium; a likely benefit in the rate of falls, though it is less clear whether the number of fallers changes; and a possible small (∼5 %) relative reduction in mortality. Evidence does not support the use of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of cancer, respiratory infections or rheumatoid arthritis. Similarly, evidence does not support vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis or for improving depression/mental well-being. Regular testing of 25-hydroxyvitamin D is generally not required, and mega-doses (≥300,000 IU) appear to increase harms. Much of the evidence is at high risk of bias, with multiple flaws, including analyses of secondary endpoints, small and underpowered studies, inconsistent results and numerous other issues. Therefore, enthusiasm for a vitamin D panacea should be tempered.

No abstract

BackgroundAlmost half a million breast reduction surgeries are performed internationally each year, yet it is unclear how this type of surgery impacts breastfeeding. This is particularly important given the benefits of breastfeeding.ObjectivesTo determine if breast reduction surgery impacts breastfeeding success and whether different surgical techniques differentially impact breast feeding success.MethodsDatabases were searched up to September 5, 2017. Studies were included if they reported the number of women successful at breastfeeding or lactation after breast reduction surgery, and if they reported either the total number of women who had children following breast reduction surgery, or the total number of women who attempted to breastfeed following surgery.ResultsOf 1,212 studies, 51 studies met the inclusion criteria; they were located worldwide and had 31 distinct breast reduction techniques. The percentage of breastfeeding success among studies was highly variable. However, when analyzed by the preservation of the column of parenchyma from the nipple areola complex to the chest wall (subareolar parenchyma), a clear pattern emerged. The median breastfeeding success was 4% (interquartile range (IQR) 0–38%) for techniques with no preservation, compared to 75% (IQR 37–100%) for techniques with partial preservation and 100% (IQR 75–100%) for techniques with full preservation.ConclusionsTechniques that preserve the column of subareolar parenchyma appear to have a greater likelihood of successful breastfeeding. The preservation of the column of subareolar parenchyma should be disclosed to women prior to surgery. Guidelines on the best breast reduction techniques to be used in women of child bearing years may be advantageous to ensure women have the greatest potential for successful breastfeeding after breast reduction surgery.

There is general consensus in the academic community that evidence-based medicine (EBM) teaching is essential. Unfortunately, many postgraduate programs have significant weakness in their EBM programs. The Family Medicine Residency committee at the University of Alberta felt their EBM curriculum would benefit from critical review and revision. An EBM Curriculum Committee was created to evaluate previous components and develop new strategies as needed. Input from stakeholders including faculty and residents was sought, and evidence regarding the teaching and practical application of EBM was gathered. The committee drafted goals and objectives, the primary of which were to assist residents to (1) become competent self-directed, lifelong learners with skills to effectively and efficiently keep up to date, and 2) develop EBM skills to solve problems encountered in daily practice. New curriculum components, each evidence based, were introduced in 2005 and include a family medicine EBM workshop to establish basic EBM knowledge; a Web-based Family Medicine Desktop promoting easier access to evidence-based Internet resources; a brief evidence-based assessment of the research project enhancing integration of EBM into daily practice; and a journal club to support peer learning and growth of rapid appraisal skills. Issues including time use, costs, and change management are discussed. Ongoing evaluation of the curriculum and its components is a principal factor of the design, allowing critical review and adaptation of the curriculum. The first two years of the curriculum have yielded positive feedback from faculty and statistically significant improvement in multiple areas of residents' opinions of the curriculum and comfort with evidence-based practice.