The current review shows high prevalence and incidence of common endocrine and metabolic disorders. Defining the epidemiology of these conditions will provide clues to risk factors and identify areas to allocate public health and research resources.

Background: While identifying and cataloging unpublished studies from conference proceedings is generally recognized as a good practice during systematic reviews, controversy remains whether to include study results that are reported in conference abstracts. Existing guidelines provide conflicting recommendations. Main body: The main argument for including conference abstracts in systematic reviews is that abstracts with positive results are preferentially published, and published sooner, as full-length articles compared with other abstracts. Arguments against including conference abstracts are that (1) searching for abstracts is resource-intensive, (2) abstracts may not contain adequate information, and (3) the information in abstracts may not be dependable. However, studies comparing conference abstracts and fully published articles of the same study find only minor differences, usually with conference abstracts presenting preliminary results. Other studies that have examined differences in treatment estimates of meta-analyses with and without conference abstracts report changes in precision, but usually not in the treatment effect estimate. However, in some cases, including conference abstracts has made a difference in the estimate of the treatment effect, not just its precision. Instead of arbitrarily deciding to include or exclude conference abstracts in systematic reviews, we suggest that systematic reviewers should consider the availability of evidence informing the review. If available evidence is sparse or conflicting, it may be worthwhile to search for conference abstracts. Further, attempts to contact authors of abstracts or search for protocols or trial registers to supplement the information presented in conference abstracts is prudent. If unique information from conference abstracts is included in a meta-analysis, a sensitivity analysis with and without the unique results should be conducted. Conclusions: Under given circumstances, it is worthwhile to search for and include results from conference abstracts in systematic reviews.

No abstract

Use of this novel molecular test for differential diagnosis of cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules can potentially avoid almost three fourths of currently performed surgeries in patients with benign nodules. Compared with current practice based on cytological findings alone, use of this test may result in lower overall costs and modestly improved quality of life for patients with indeterminate thyroid nodules.

IntroductionChoice of outcomes is critical for clinical trialists and systematic reviewers. It is currently unclear how systematic reviewers choose and pre-specify outcomes for systematic reviews. Our objective was to assess the completeness of pre-specification and comparability of outcomes in all Cochrane reviews addressing four common eye conditions.MethodsWe examined protocols for all Cochrane reviews as of June 2013 that addressed glaucoma, cataract, age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and diabetic retinopathy (DR). We assessed completeness and comparability for each outcome that was named in ≥25% of protocols on those topics. We defined a completely-specified outcome as including information about five elements: domain, specific measurement, specific metric, method of aggregation, and time-points. For each domain, we assessed comparability in how individual elements were specified across protocols.ResultsWe identified 57 protocols addressing glaucoma (22), cataract (16), AMD (15), and DR (4). We assessed completeness and comparability for five outcome domains: quality-of-life, visual acuity, intraocular pressure, disease progression, and contrast sensitivity. Overall, these five outcome domains appeared 145 times (instances). Only 15/145 instances (10.3%) were completely specified (all five elements) (median = three elements per outcome). Primary outcomes were more completely specified than non-primary (median = four versus two elements). Quality-of-life was least completely specified (median = one element). Due to largely incomplete outcome pre-specification, conclusive assessment of comparability in outcome usage across the various protocols per condition was not possible.DiscussionOutcome pre-specification was largely incomplete; we encourage systematic reviewers to consider all five elements. This will indicate the importance of complete specification to clinical trialists, on whose work systematic reviewers depend, and will indirectly encourage comparable outcome choice to reviewers undertaking related research questions. Complete pre-specification could improve efficiency and reduce bias in data abstraction and analysis during a systematic review. Ultimately, more completely specified and comparable outcomes could make systematic reviews more useful to decision-makers.

No abstract

Purpose: Sjögren's syndrome (SS) is a common autoimmune disease affecting about four million Americans. Although approximately 1 in 10 patients with clinically-significant aqueous deficient dry eye has underlying SS, widespread underappreciation of SS leads to significant underdiagnosis, delays in diagnosis, and consequent morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this article is to illustrate that in addition to dry eye, SS can cause serious, vision-threatening extraglandular ocular manifestations. Methods: We conducted a narrative review of studies that have examined the dry eye and extraglandular ocular complications of SS. Results: SS-related dry eye is a progressive condition with major negative impact on the qualityof-life of afflicted patients, not only due to symptoms of ocular discomfort but also visual dysfunction. In addition, SS can lead to corneal melt/perforation, uveitis, scleritis, retinal vasculitis, and optic neuritis. A major problem with currently-available SS disease activity measurement instruments is the lack of domains evaluating dry eye-related visual dysfunction. For example, one of the most commonly-used instruments for assessing patient symptoms in SS (the EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index [ESSPRI]) only includes one item (out of three) that addresses the severity of overall dryness, without mention of dry eye symptoms or vision-related quality-of-life. Similarly, no extraglandular ocular complications are included in currently-available SS disease activity instruments (e.g., the EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index [ESSDAI]). Conclusions: There needs to be a paradigm shift in which eye care providers and rheumatologists become more familiar with various SS-related extraglandular ocular manifestations. Existing disease activity measurement instruments must incorporate dry eye symptoms, particularly those related to visual dysfunction. An evidence-based screening algorithm for determining which patients with dry eye should be tested for underlying SS may be particularly helpful in preventing delays in diagnosis.

Background: Primary headaches (migraine, tension headache, cluster headache, and other trigeminal autonomic cephalgias) are common in pregnancy and postpartum. It is unclear how to best and most safely manage them. Objective: We conducted a systematic review (SR) of interventions to prevent or treat primary headaches in women who are pregnant, attempting to become pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials. gov, Cochrane Database of SRs, and Epistemonikos for primary studies of pregnant women with primary headache and existing SRs of harms in pregnant women regardless of indication. No date or language restrictions were applied. We assessed strength of evidence (SoE) using standard methods. Results: We screened 8549 citations for studies and 2788 citations for SRs. Sixteen studies (mostly high risk of bias) comprising 14,185 patients (total) and 26 SRs met the criteria. For prevention, we found no evidence addressing effectiveness. Antiepileptics, venlafaxine, tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, β-blockers, prednisolone, and oral magnesium may be associated with fetal/child adverse effects, but calcium channel blockers and antihistamines may not be (1 single-group study and 11 SRs; lowto-moderate SoE). For treatment, combination metoclopramide and diphenhydramine may be more effective than codeine for migraine or tension headache (1 randomized controlled trial; low SoE). Triptans may not be associated with fetal/child adverse effects (8 nonrandomized comparative studies; low SoE). Acetaminophen, prednisolone, indomethacin, ondansetron, antipsychotics, and intravenous magnesium may be associated with fetal/child adverse effects, but low-dose aspirin may not be (indirect evidence; low-to-moderate SoE). We found insufficient evidence regarding non-pharmacologic treatments.