Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) complicates ∼1.2 of every 1000 deliveries. Despite these low absolute risks, pregnancy-associated VTE is a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians and others in decisions about the prevention and management of pregnancy-associated VTE. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. Results: The panel agreed on 31 recommendations related to the treatment of VTE and superficial vein thrombosis, diagnosis of VTE, and thrombosis prophylaxis. Conclusions: There was a strong recommendation for low-molecular-weight heparin (LWMH) over unfractionated heparin for acute VTE. Most recommendations were conditional, including those for either twice-per-day or once-per-day LMWH dosing for the treatment of acute VTE and initial outpatient therapy over hospital admission with low-risk acute VTE, as well as against routine anti-factor Xa (FXa) monitoring to guide dosing with LMWH for VTE treatment. There was a strong recommendation (low certainty in evidence) for antepartum anticoagulant prophylaxis with a history of unprovoked or hormonally associated VTE and a conditional recommendation against antepartum anticoagulant prophylaxis with prior VTE associated with a resolved nonhormonal provoking risk factor.

Background: Clinicians confront numerous practical issues in optimizing the use of anticoagulants to treat venous thromboembolism (VTE). Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians and other health care professionals in their decisions about the use of anticoagulants in the management of VTE. These guidelines assume the choice of anticoagulant has already been made. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on 25 recommendations and 2 good practice statements to optimize management of patients receiving anticoagulants. Conclusions: Strong recommendations included using patient self-management of international normalized ratio (INR) with home point-of-care INR monitoring for vitamin K antagonist therapy and against using periprocedural low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) bridging therapy. Conditional recommendations included basing treatment dosing of LMWH on actual body weight, not using anti–factor Xa monitoring to guide LMWH dosing, using specialized anticoagulation management services, and resuming anticoagulation after episodes of life-threatening bleeding.

Background: Modern diagnostic strategies for venous thromboembolism (VTE) incorporate pretest probability (PTP; prevalence) assessment. The ability of diagnostic tests to correctly identify or exclude VTE is influenced by VTE prevalence and test accuracy characteristics. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines are intended to support patients, clinicians, and health care professionals in VTE diagnosis. Diagnostic strategies were evaluated for pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of the lower and upper extremity, and recurrent VTE. Methods: The American Society of Hematology (ASH) formed a multidisciplinary panel including patient representatives. The McMaster University GRADE Centre completed systematic reviews up to 1 October 2017. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence and make recommendations. Test accuracy estimates and VTE population prevalence were used to model expected outcomes in diagnostic pathways. Where modeling was not feasible, management and accuracy studies were used to formulate recommendations. Results: Ten recommendations are presented, by PTP for patients with suspected PE and lower extremity DVT, and for recurrent VTE and upper extremity DVT. Conclusions: For patients at low (unlikely) VTE risk, using D-dimer as the initial test reduces the need for diagnostic imaging. For patients at high (likely) VTE risk, imaging is warranted. For PE diagnosis, ventilation-perfusion scanning and computed tomography pulmonary angiography are the most validated tests, whereas lower or upper extremity DVT diagnosis uses ultrasonography. Research is needed on new diagnostic modalities and to validate clinical decision rules for patients with suspected recurrent VTE.

Background: Despite an increasing incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pediatric patients in tertiary care settings, relatively few pediatric physicians have experience with antithrombotic interventions. Objective: These guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), based on the best available evidence, are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about management of pediatric VTE. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included 2 patient representatives and was balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews (up to April of 2017). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on 30 recommendations, covering symptomatic and asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis, with specific focus on management of central venous access device–associated VTE. The panel also addressed renal and portal vein thrombosis, cerebral sino venous thrombosis, and homozygous protein C deficiency. Conclusions: Although the panel offered many recommendations, additional research is required. Priorities include understanding the natural history of asymptomatic thrombosis, determining subgroup boundaries that enable risk stratification of children for escalation of treatment, and appropriate study of newer anticoagulant agents in children.

Objective To develop an instrument to evaluate the credibility of anchor based minimal important differences (MIDs) for outcome measures reported by patients, and to assess the reliability of the instrument. Design Instrument development and reliability study. Data sources Initial criteria were developed for evaluating the credibility of anchor based MIDs based on a literature review (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases) and the experience of the authors in the methodology for estimation of MIDs. Iterative discussions by the team and pilot testing with experts and potential users facilitated the development of the final instrument. Participants With the newly developed instrument, pairs of masters, doctoral, or postdoctoral students with a background in health research methodology independently evaluated the credibility of a sample of MID estimates. Main outcome measures Core credibility criteria applicable to all anchor types, additional criteria for transition rating anchors, and inter-rater reliability coefficients were determined. Results The credibility instrument has five core criteria: the anchor is rated by the patient; the anchor is interpretable and relevant to the patient; the MID estimate is precise; the correlation between the anchor and the outcome measure reported by the patient is satisfactory; and the authors select a threshold on the anchor that reflects a small but important difference. The additional criteria for transition rating anchors are: the time elapsed between baseline and follow-up measurement for estimation of the MID is optimal; and the correlations of the transition rating with the baseline, follow-up, and change score in the patient reported outcome measures are satisfactory. Inter-rater reliability coefficients (ĸ) for the core criteria and for one item from the additional criteria ranged from 0.70 to 0.94. Reporting issues prevented the evaluation of the reliability of the three other additional criteria for the transition rating anchors. Conclusions Researchers, clinicians, and healthcare policy decision makers can consider using this instrument to evaluate the design, conduct, and analysis of studies estimating anchor based minimal important differences.

No abstract

Introduction:Despite its efficacy and widespread use, methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) continues to be widely stigmatized. Reducing the stigma surrounding MMT will help improve the accessibility, retention, and treatment outcomes in MMT.Methods:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 adults undergoing MMT. Thematic content analysis was used to identify overarching themes.Results:In total, 78% of participants reported having experienced stigma surrounding MMT. Common stereotypes associated with MMT patients included the following: methadone as a way to get high, incompetence, untrustworthiness, lack of willpower, and heroin junkies. Participants reported that stigma resulted in lower self-esteem; relationship conflicts; reluctance to initiate, access, or continue MMT; and distrust toward the health care system. Public awareness campaigns, education of health care workers, family therapy, and community meetings were cited as potential stigma-reduction strategies.Discussion and Conclusion:Stigma is a widespread and serious issue that adversely affects MMT patients’ quality of life and treatment. More efforts are needed to combat MMT-related stigma.

PurposeReporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines.Materials and methodsEight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL).ResultsAmong the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines.ConclusionWe conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.