ObjectiveTo assess patient response rates to medical therapies used to treat endometriosis-associated pain.DesignA systematic review with the use of Medline and Embase.SettingNot applicable.Patient(s)Women receiving medical therapy to treat endometriosis.Interventions(s)None.Main Outcome Measure(s)The proportions of patients who: experienced no reduction in endometriosis-associated pain symptoms; had pain symptoms remaining at the end of the treatment period; had pain recurrence after treatment cessation; experienced an increase or no change in disease score during the study; were satisfied with treatment; and discontinued therapy owing to adverse events or lack of efficacy. The change in pain symptom severity experienced during and after treatment, as measured on the visual analog scale, was also assessed.Result(s)In total, 58 articles describing 125 treatment arms met the inclusion criteria. Data for the response of endometriosis-associated pain symptoms to treatment were presented in only 29 articles. The median proportions of women with no reduction in pain were 11%–19%; at the end of treatment, 5%–59% had pain remaining; and after follow-up, 17%–34% had experienced recurrence of pain symptoms after treatment cessation. After median study durations of 2–24 months, the median discontinuation rates due to adverse events or lack of efficacy were 5%–16%.Conclusion(s)Few studies of medical therapies for endometriosis report outcomes that are relevant to patients, and many women gain only limited or intermittent benefit from treatment.

SummaryA microreactor for electrochemical synthesis has been designed and fabricated. It has been shown that different reactions can be carried out successfully using simple protocols.

[reaction: see text] Changing the identity of the N leaving group on a hydroxylamine-based reoxidant gives a dramatic improvement to the tethered aminohydroxylation reaction. Using OCOC6F5 as a leaving group means that only 1 mol % of osmium is required and yields as high as 98% can be obtained. Acyclic homoallylic alcohols were substrates considered too unreactive for effective use in the tethered aminohydroxylation reaction; improved reaction conditions mean that they have now become viable substrates for oxidation.

Objective: Among women treated surgically for endometriosisassociated pain, comprehensive data are lacking on the proportions of patients who experience little or no symptom relief, develop recurrent symptoms, or require further surgical treatment for endometriosis. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of surgical procedures used to treat endometriosis-associated pain.Methods: Medline and Embase were searched on October 13, 2016.Articles referring to women undergoing surgery for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain were screened by two independent investigators. For each included treatment arm, data were extracted for the proportion of patients reporting partial or no improvement after surgery for endometriosis-associated pain, pain recurrence, or requirement for further surgery.Results: A total of 38 studies were included. Most studies did not report relevant outcomes to evaluate pain (71.1%) and recurrent surgery (68.4%). Of the women who underwent lesion excision, 11.8% reported no improvement in pain, and 22.6% underwent further surgery. Postoperative pain, recurrent pain, and adverse events were reported by 34.3%, 28.7%, and 14.8%, respectively, of patients who underwent excision or ablation of endometriosis combined with pelvic denervation and in 25.0%, 15.8%, and 8.1% of women who underwent lesion excision alone. Of the patients who were treated surgically for deep endometriosis affecting the bowel and/or bladder, 7.0% experienced recurrent symptoms, and 4.1% underwent further surgery. Conclusion:This review supports the findings of previous studies and highlights the need for standardized reporting and more detailed follow-up after surgery for endometriosis-associated pain.

ObjectivesAuthors may choose to work with professional medical writers when writing up their research for publication. We examined the relationship between medical writing support and the quality and timeliness of reporting of the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).DesignCross-sectional study.Study samplePrimary reports of RCTs published in BioMed Central journals from 2000 to 16 July 2014, subdivided into those with medical writing support (n=110) and those without medical writing support (n=123).Main outcome measuresProportion of items that were completely reported from a predefined subset of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist (12 items known to be commonly poorly reported), overall acceptance time (from manuscript submission to editorial acceptance) and quality of written English as assessed by peer reviewers. The effect of funding source and publication year was examined.ResultsThe number of articles that completely reported at least 50% of the CONSORT items assessed was higher for those with declared medical writing support (39.1% (43/110 articles); 95% CI 29.9% to 48.9%) than for those without (21.1% (26/123 articles); 95% CI 14.3% to 29.4%). Articles with declared medical writing support were more likely than articles without such support to have acceptable written English (81.1% (43/53 articles); 95% CI 67.6% to 90.1% vs 47.9% (23/48 articles); 95% CI 33.5% to 62.7%). The median time of overall acceptance was longer for articles with declared medical writing support than for those without (167 days (IQR 114.5–231 days) vs 136 days (IQR 77–193 days)).ConclusionsIn this sample of open-access journals, declared professional medical writing support was associated with more complete reporting of clinical trial results and higher quality of written English. Medical writing support may play an important role in raising the quality of clinical trial reporting.

Background Structured, systematic methods to formulate consensus recommendations, such as the Delphi process or nominal group technique, among others, provide the opportunity to harness the knowledge of experts to support clinical decision making in areas of uncertainty. They are widely used in biomedical research, in particular where disease characteristics or resource limitations mean that high-quality evidence generation is difficult. However, poor reporting of methods used to reach a consensus – for example, not clearly explaining the definition of consensus, or not stating how consensus group panellists were selected – can potentially undermine confidence in this type of research and hinder reproducibility. Our objective is therefore to systematically develop a reporting guideline to help the biomedical research and clinical practice community describe the methods or techniques used to reach consensus in a complete, transparent, and consistent manner. Methods The ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) project will take place in five stages and follow the EQUATOR Network guidance for the development of reporting guidelines. In Stage 1, a multidisciplinary Steering Committee has been established to lead and coordinate the guideline development process. In Stage 2, a systematic literature review will identify evidence on the quality of the reporting of consensus methodology, to obtain potential items for a reporting checklist. In Stage 3, Delphi methodology will be used to reach consensus regarding the checklist items, first among the Steering Committee, and then among a broader Delphi panel comprising participants with a range of expertise, including patient representatives. In Stage 4, the reporting guideline will be finalised in a consensus meeting, along with the production of an Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document. In Stage 5, we plan to publish the reporting guideline and E&E document in open-access journals, supported by presentations at appropriate events. Dissemination of the reporting guideline, including a website linked to social media channels, is crucial for the document to be implemented in practice. Discussion The ACCORD reporting guideline will provide a set of minimum items that should be reported about methods used to achieve consensus, including approaches ranging from simple unstructured opinion gatherings to highly structured processes.

No abstract

No abstract