Management of impacted fetal head at cesarean birth: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Despite increasing incidence of impacted fetal head at cesarean birth and associated injury, it is unclear which techniques are most effective for prevention and management. A high quality evidence review in accordance with international reporting standards is currently lacking. To address this gap, we aimed to identify, assess, and synthesize studies comparing techniques to prevent or manage impacted fetal head at cesarean birth prior to or at full cervical dilatation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Emcare, Embase and Cochrane databases up to 1 January 2023 (PROSPERO: CRD420212750016). Included were randomized controlled trials (any size) and non-randomized comparative studies (n ≥ 30 in each arm) comparing techniques or adjunctive measures to prevent or manage impacted fetal head at cesarean birth. Following screening and data extraction, we assessed risk of bias for individual studies using RoB2 and ROBINS-I, and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We synthesized data using meta-analysis where appropriate, including sensitivity analyses excluding data published in potential predatory journals or at risk of retraction. RESULTS: We identified 24 eligible studies (11 randomized and 13 non-randomized) including 3558 women, that compared vaginal disimpaction, reverse breech extraction, the Patwardhan method and/or the Fetal Pillow®. GRADE certainty of evidence was low or very low for all 96 outcomes across seven reported comparisons. Pooled analysis mostly showed no or equivocal differences in outcomes across comparisons of techniques. Although some maternal outcomes suggested differences between techniques (e.g., risk ratio of 3.41 [95% CI: 2.50-4.66] for uterine incision extension with vaginal disimpaction vs. reverse breech extraction), these were based on unreliable pooled estimates given very low GRADE certainty and, in some cases, additional risk of bias introduced by data published in potential predatory journals or at risk of retraction. CONCLUSIONS: The current weaknesses in the evidence base mean that no firm recommendations can be made about the superiority of any one impacted fetal head technique over another, indicating that high quality training is needed across the range of techniques. Future studies to improve the evidence base are urgently required, using a standard definition of impacted fetal head, agreed maternal and neonatal outcome sets for impacted fetal head, and internationally recommended reporting standards.

Management of Impacted Fetal Head at Caesarean Birth: Scientific Impact Paper No. 73.

Over one-quarter of women in the UK have a caesarean birth (CB). More than one in 20 of these births occurs near the end of labour, when the cervix is fully dilated (second stage). In these circumstances, and when labour has been prolonged, the baby's head can become lodged deep in the maternal pelvis making it challenging to deliver the baby. During the caesarean birth, difficulty in delivery of the baby's head may result - this emergency is known as impacted fetal head (IFH). These are technically challenging births that pose significant risks to both the woman and baby. Complications for the woman include tears in the womb, serious bleeding and longer hospital stay. Babies are at increased risk of injury including damage to the head and face, lack of oxygen to the brain, nerve damage, and in rare cases, the baby may die from these complications. Maternity staff are increasingly encountering IFH at CB, and reports of associated injuries have risen dramatically in recent years. The latest UK studies suggest that IFH may complicate as many as one in 10 unplanned CBs (1.5% of all births) and that two in 100 babies affected by IFH die or are seriously injured. Moreover, there has been a sharp increase in reports of babies having brain injuries when their birth was complicated by IFH. When an IFH occurs, the maternity team can use different approaches to help deliver the baby's head at CB. These include: an assistant (another obstetrician or midwife) pushing the head up from the vagina; delivering the baby feet first; using a specially designed inflatable balloon device to elevate the baby's head and/or giving the mother a medicine to relax the womb. However, there is currently no consensus for how best to manage these births. This has resulted in a lack of confidence among maternity staff, variable practice and potentially avoidable harm in some circumstances. This paper reviews the current evidence regarding the prediction, prevention and management of IFH at CB, integrating findings from a systematic review commissioned from the National Guideline Alliance.

Oxycodone for cancer-related pain.

BACKGROUND: Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all people, neither are they well tolerated by all people. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for adults with cancer pain. This is an updated Cochrane review previously published in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone by any route of administration for pain in adults with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), and PsycINFO (Ovid) to November 2021. We also searched four trial registries, checked the bibliographic references of relevant studies, and contacted the authors of the included studies. We applied no language, date, or publication status restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults by examining pain intensity/relief, adverse events, quality of life, and participant preference. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently sifted the search, extracted data and assessed the included studies using standard Cochrane methodology. We meta-analysed pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, and pain relief and adverse events using the Mantel-Haenszel method, or summarised these data narratively along with the quality of life and participant preference data. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: For this update, we identified 19 new studies (1836 participants) for inclusion. In total, we included 42 studies which enrolled/randomised 4485 participants, with 3945 of these analysed for efficacy and 4176 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons. Controlled-release (CR; typically taken every 12 hours) oxycodone versus immediate-release (IR; taken every 4-6 hours) oxycodone Pooled analysis of three of the four studies comparing CR oxycodone to IR oxycodone suggest that there is little to no difference between CR and IR oxycodone in pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.1 to 0.34; n = 319; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on adverse events, including constipation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54), nausea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28), and vomiting (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15) (very low-certainty evidence). There were no data available for quality of life or participant preference, however, three studies suggested that treatment acceptability may be similar between groups (low-certainty evidence). CR oxycodone versus CR morphine The majority of the 24 studies comparing CR oxycodone to CR morphine reported either pain intensity (continuous variable), pain relief (dichotomous variable), or both. Pooled analysis indicated that pain intensity may be lower (better) after treatment with CR morphine than CR oxycodone (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; n = 882 in 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). This SMD is equivalent to a difference of 0.27 points on the Brief Pain Inventory scale (0-10 numerical rating scale), which is not clinically significant. Pooled analyses also suggested that there may be little to no difference in the proportion of participants achieving complete or significant pain relief (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10; n = 1249 in 13 studies; low-certainty evidence). The RR for constipation (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86) may be lower after treatment with CR oxycodone than after CR morphine. Pooled analyses showed that, for most of the adverse events, the CIs were wide, including no effect as well as potential benefit and harm: drowsiness/somnolence (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05), nausea (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.12), and vomiting (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04) (low or very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the treatment effects on treatment acceptability and participant preference. Other comparisons The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability. The certainty of this evidence base was limited by the high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and by imprecision due to low or very low event rates or participant numbers for many outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The conclusions have not changed since the previous version of this review (in 2017). We found low-certainty evidence that there may be little to no difference in pain intensity, pain relief and adverse events between oxycodone and other strong opioids including morphine, commonly considered the gold standard strong opioid. Although we identified a benefit for pain relief in favour of CR morphine over CR oxycodone, this was not clinically significant and did not persist following sensitivity analysis and so we do not consider this important. However, we found that constipation and hallucinations occurred less often with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine; but the certainty of this evidence was either very low or the finding did not persist following sensitivity analysis, so these findings should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that, while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis, it seems unlikely that larger head-to-head studies of oxycodone versus morphine are justified, although well-designed trials comparing oxycodone to other strong analgesics may well be useful. For clinical purposes, oxycodone or morphine can be used as first-line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain in adults.

Sentinel node biopsy for diagnosis of lymph node involvement in endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic lymphadenectomy provides prognostic information for those diagnosed with endometrial (womb) cancer and provides information that may influence decisions regarding adjuvant treatment. However, studies have not shown a therapeutic benefit, and lymphadenectomy causes significant morbidity. The technique of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), allows the first draining node from a cancer to be identified and examined histologically for involvement with cancer cells. SLNB is commonly used in other cancers, including breast and vulval cancer. Different tracers, including colloid labelled with radioactive technetium-99, blue dyes, e.g. patent or methylene blue, and near infra-red fluorescent dyes, e.g. indocyanine green (ICG), have been used singly or in combination for detection of sentinel lymph nodes (SLN). OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in the identification of pelvic lymph node involvement in women with endometrial cancer, presumed to be at an early stage prior to surgery, including consideration of the detection rate. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (1946 to July 2019), Embase (1974 to July 2019) and the relevant Cochrane trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of tracers for SLN assessment (involving the identification of a SLN plus histological examination) against a reference standard of histological examination of removed pelvic +/- para-aortic lymph nodes following systematic pelvic +/- para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PLND/PPALND) in women with endometrial cancer, where there were sufficient data for the construction of two-by-two tables. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (a combination of HN, JM, NW, RG, and WH) independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance, classified studies for inclusion/exclusion and extracted data. We assessed the methodological quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We calculated the detection rate as the arithmetic mean of the total number of SLNs detected out of the total number of women included in the included studies with the woman as the unit of analysis, used univariate meta-analytical methods to estimate pooled sensitivity estimates, and summarised the results using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: The search revealed 6259 unique records after removal of duplicates. After screening 232 studies in full text, we found 73 potentially includable records (for 52 studies), although we were only able to extract 2x2 table data for 33 studies, including 2237 women (46 records) for inclusion in the review, despite writing to trial authors for additional information. We found 11 studies that analysed results for blue dye alone, four studies for technetium-99m alone, 12 studies that used a combination of blue dye and technetium-99m, nine studies that used indocyanine green (ICG) and near infra-red immunofluorescence, and one study that used a combination of ICG and technetium-99m. Overall, the methodological reporting in most of the studies was poor, which resulted in a very large proportion of 'unclear risk of bias' ratings. Overall, the mean SLN detection rate was 86.9% (95% CI 82.9% to 90.8%; 2237 women; 33 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In studies that reported bilateral detection the mean rate was 65.4% (95% CI 57.8% to 73.0%) . When considered according to which tracer was used, the SLN detection rate ranged from 77.8% (95% CI 70.0% to 85.6%) for blue dye alone (559 women; 11 studies; low-certainty evidence) to 100% for ICG and technetium-99m (32 women; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The rates of positive lymph nodes ranged from 5.2% to 34.4% with a mean of 20.1% (95% CI 17.7% to 22.3%). The pooled sensitivity of SLNB was 91.8% (95% CI 86.5% to 95.1%; total 2237 women, of whom 409 had SLN involvement; moderate-certainty evidence). The sensitivity for of SLNB for the different tracers were: blue dye alone 95.2% (95% CI 77.2% to 99.2%; 559 women; 11 studies; low-certainty evidence); Technetium-99m alone 90.5% (95% CI 67.7% to 97.7%; 257 women; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence); technetium-99m and blue dye 91.9% (95% CI 74.4% to 97.8%; 548 women; 12 studies; low-certainty evidence); ICG alone 92.5% (95% CI 81.8% to 97.1%; 953 women; 9 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); ICG and blue dye 90.5% (95% CI 63.2.6% to 98.1%; 215 women; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); and ICG and technetium-99m 100% (95% CI 63% to 100%; 32 women; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Meta-regression analyses found that the sensitivities did not differ between the different tracers used, between studies with a majority of women with FIGO stage 1A versus 1B or above; between studies assessing the pelvic lymph node basin alone versus the pelvic and para-aortic lymph node basin; or between studies that used subserosal alone versus subserosal and cervical injection. It should be noted that a false-positive result cannot occur, as the histological examination of the SLN is unchanged by the results from any additional nodes removed at systematic lymphadenectomy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic test accuracy for SLNB using either ICG alone or a combination of a dye (blue or ICG) and technetium-99m is probably good, with high sensitivity, where a SLN could be detected. Detection rates with ICG or a combination of dye (ICG or blue) and technetium-99m may be higher. The value of a SLNB approach in a treatment pathway, over adjuvant treatment decisions based on uterine factors and molecular profiling, requires examination in a high-quality intervention study.

Expulsion at home for early medical abortion: A systematic review with meta-analyses.

INTRODUCTION: The safety and acceptability of medical abortion using mifepristone and misoprostol at home at ≤9+0  weeks' gestation is well established. However, the upper gestational limit at which the procedure remains safe and acceptable at home is not known. To inform a national guideline on abortion care we conducted a systematic review to determine what gestational limit for expulsion at home offers the best balance of benefits and harms for women who are having medical abortion. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Cinahl Plus and Web-of-Science on 2 January 2020 for prospective and retrospective cohort studies with ≥50 women per gestational age group, published in English from 1995 onwards, that included women undergoing medical abortion and compared home expulsion of pregnancies of ≤9+0  weeks' gestational age with pregnancies of 9+1 -10+0  weeks or >10+1  weeks' gestational age, or compared the latter two gestational age groups. We assessed risk-of-bias using the Newcastle-Ottowa scale. All outcomes were meta-analyzed as risk ratios (RR) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Six studies (n = 3381) were included. The "need for emergency care/admission to hospital" (RR = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-1.4), "hemorrhage requiring transfusion/≥500 mL blood loss" (RR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.11-3.55), patient satisfaction (RR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.95-1.03), pain (RR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.82-1.02), and "complete abortion without the need for surgical intervention" (RR = 1.03, 95% CI 1-1.05) did not differ statistically significantly between the ≤9+0 and >9+0  weeks' gestation groups. The rates of vomiting (RR = 0.8, 95% CI 0.69-0.93) and diarrhea (RR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.73-0.99) were statistically significantly lower in the ≤9+0  weeks group but these differences were not considered clinically important. We found no studies comparing pregnancies of 9+1 -10+0  weeks' gestation with pregnancies of >10+0  weeks' gestation. The certainty of this evidence was predominantly low and mainly compromised by low event rates and loss to follow up. CONCLUSIONS: Women who are having a medical abortion and will be taking mifepristone up to and including 10+0  weeks' gestation should be offered the option of expulsion at home after they have taken the misoprostol. Further research needs to determine whether the gestational limit for home expulsion can be extended beyond 10+0  weeks.

Follow-up strategies to confirm the success of medical abortion of pregnancies up to 10 weeks' gestation: a systematic review with meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of in-clinic and remote/self-assessment, as well as different remote/self-assessments, for confirming the success of medical abortion at ≤10+0 weeks' gestation. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Embase Classic and Embase; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead-of-Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily; and the Cochrane Library. We also consulted experts in this field for any ongoing or missed trials. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials published in English from 2000 onward, comparing in-clinic assessment with ultrasound to remote or self-assessment or comparing different remote or self-assessment strategies to confirm the success of medical abortion of pregnancies up to and including 10+0 weeks gestation, reporting any of the following outcomes: "missed ongoing pregnancy," "correct implementation of the follow-up strategy," patient satisfaction/preference, "adherence to follow-up strategy," "unscheduled visits/telephone calls to the abortion service," and surgical intervention. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: One author assessed the risk of bias in the studies using the Cochrane Collaboration checklist for randomized controlled trials. All outcomes were analyzed as risk ratios and meta-analysed in Review Manager 5.3 using the Mantel-Haenszel statistical method and a fixed effect model. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials (n = 5761) compared in-clinic to remote self-assessment and found no clinically significant differences apart from higher preference rates for remote follow-up, especially in the remote follow-up groups. The quality of this evidence was compromised by attrition, no blinding, inconsistency, indirectness, and low event rates. Two randomized controlled trials (n = 1125) compared different remote assessment strategies (using urine pregnancy tests) and also found no clinically significant differences apart from a clinically significantly lower rate of unscheduled visits to the abortion service in the remote follow-up group using a multilevel urine pregnancy test compared to remote follow-up using a high-sensitivity urine pregnancy test. The quality of this evidence was compromised by small event rates, lack of blinding, indirectness and high attrition rates. CONCLUSION: The published data support offering women who have had a medical abortion up to and including 10+0 weeks' gestation the choice of self-assessment, remote assessment, or clinic follow-up.

Initiation of abortion before there is definitive ultrasound evidence of intrauterine pregnancy: A systematic review with meta-analyses.

INTRODUCTION: Women are increasingly presenting for abortion at very early gestation. However, providers may be reluctant to conduct abortion at this stage as they may be concerned that they cannot exclude an ectopic pregnancy or that they may terminate a non-viable pregnancy, or may be concerned that both medical and surgical methods may be less effective at this stage of gestation. This provider concern may result in delays in the abortion as additional investigations may be required until an intrauterine pregnancy can be confirmed. Additional unnecessary visits may be distressing for women and waste health service resources. The objective of this systematic review was to determine whether it is safe and effective to initiate abortion before there is ultrasound evidence of an intrauterine pregnancy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched Embase Classic, Embase; Ovid MEDLINE® Epub Ahead-of-Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE® Daily, Ovid MEDLINE®; and Cochrane Library on 25 October 2019. Eligible studies were randomized and non-randomized comparative studies, published in English from 1985, comparing initiation of abortion before there is definitive evidence of an intrauterine pregnancy with initiation afterwards. We assessed risk-of-bias using the Newcastle-Ottowa scale. All outcomes were analyzed as risk ratios (RR) and meta-analyzed using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Two non-randomized studies (n = 3785) showed no differences in "missed ectopic pregnancy" (RR = 0.26, 95% CI 0.03-2.12), "ongoing pregnancy" (RR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.34-3.34), or "complete abortion without surgical intervention" (RR = 1, 95% CI 0.98-1.02) between initiation of medical abortion before or after ultrasound evidence of an intrauterine pregnancy. A third non-randomized study (n = 1530) showed no differences between initiation of surgical abortion before or after ultrasound evidence of an intrauterine pregnancy in "missed ectopic pregnancy" (no events), "ongoing pregnancy" (RR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.03-11.59) or "complete abortion without repeat surgical intervention" (RR = 1, 95% CI 0.99-1.01). The quality of evidence was very low. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of abortion before there is definitive ultrasound evidence of an intrauterine pregnancy in women without signs or symptoms of an ectopic pregnancy should be considered.

Oxycodone for cancer-related pain.

BACKGROUND: Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all people, neither are they well-tolerated by all people. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for adults with cancer pain. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2015, Issue 2 on oxycodone for cancer-related pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone by any route of administration for pain in adults with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), and PsycINFO (Ovid) to November 2016. We also searched four trial registries, checked the bibliographic references of relevant studies, and contacted the authors of the included studies. We applied no language, date, or publication status restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (parallel group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults by examining pain intensity/relief, adverse events, quality of life, and participant preference. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the included studies using standard Cochrane methodology. We meta-analysed pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, and adverse events using the Mantel-Haenszel method, or summarised these data narratively along with the quality of life and participant preference data. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: For this update, we identified six new studies (1258 participants) for inclusion. In total, we included 23 studies which enrolled/randomised 2648 participants, with 2144 of these analysed for efficacy and 2363 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons.Pooled analysis of three of the four studies comparing controlled-release (CR) oxycodone to immediate-release (IR) oxycodone showed that the ability of CR and IR oxycodone to provide pain relief were similar (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.06 to 0.26; low quality evidence). Pooled analyses of adverse events showed no significant differences between CR and IR oxycodone for asthenia (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.68), confusion (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.2 to 3.02), constipation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13), dizziness/lightheadedness (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.37), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54), dry mouth (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.75), insomnia (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.53), nausea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28), nervousness (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.64), pruritus (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.25), vomiting (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15), and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.22). The quality of the evidence was very low for all these adverse events. Three of the four studies found similar results for treatment acceptability.Pooled analysis of seven of the nine studies comparing CR oxycodone to CR morphine indicated that pain relief was significantly better after treatment with CR morphine than CR oxycodone (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; low quality evidence). However, sensitivity analysis did not corroborate this result (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.26).Pooled analyses of adverse events showed no significant differences between CR oxycodone and CR morphine for confusion (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.78 to 1.31), constipation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16), dizziness/lightheadedness (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.76), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.08), dry mouth (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.26), dysuria (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.26), nausea (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26), pruritus (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.29), vomiting (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29), and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.6). However, the RR for hallucinations was significantly lower after treatment with CR oxycodone compared to CR morphine (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.97). The quality of the evidence was very low for all these adverse events. There were no marked differences in treatment acceptability or quality of life ratings.The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability.The quality of this evidence base was limited by the high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and by imprecision due to low or very low event rates or participant numbers for many outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The conclusions have not changed since the previous version of this review. The data suggest that oxycodone offers similar levels of pain relief and overall adverse events to other strong opioids including morphine. Although we identified a clinically insignificant benefit on pain relief in favour of CR morphine over CR oxycodone, this did not persist following sensitivity analysis and so we do not consider this important. However, in this updated analysis, we found that hallucinations occurred less often with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine, but the quality of this evidence was very low so this finding should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis it seems unlikely that larger head to head studies of oxycodone versus morphine are justified, although well-designed trials comparing oxycodone to other strong analgesics may well be useful. For clinical purposes, oxycodone or morphine can be used as first-line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain in adults.

Axillary treatment for operable primary breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Axillary surgery is an established part of the management of primary breast cancer. It provides staging information to guide adjuvant therapy and potentially local control of axillary disease. Several alternative approaches to axillary surgery are available, most of which aim to spare a proportion of women the morbidity of complete axillary dissection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of alternative approaches to axillary surgery (including omitting such surgery altogether) in terms of overall survival; local, regional and distant recurrences; and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Pre-MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov on 12 March 2015 without language restrictions. We also contacted study authors and checked reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including women with clinically defined operable primary breast cancer conducted to compare axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) with no axillary surgery, axillary sampling or sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB); RCTs comparing axillary sampling with SLNB or no axillary surgery; RCTs comparing SLNB with no axillary surgery; and RCTs comparing ALND with or without radiotherapy (RT) versus RT alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed each potentially relevant trial for inclusion. We independently extracted outcome data, risk of bias information and study characteristics from all included trials. We pooled data according to trial interventions, and we used hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event outcomes and odds ratios (OR) for binary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 RCTs in this review. Studies were at low or unclear risk of selection bias. Blinding was not done, but this was only considered a source of bias for outcomes with potential for subjectivity in measurements. We found no RCTs of axillary sampling versus SLNB, axillary sampling versus no axillary surgery or SLNB versus no axillary surgery. No axillary surgery versus ALND Ten trials involving 3849 participants compared no axillary surgery versus ALND. Moderate quality evidence showed no important differences between overall survival of women in the two groups (HR 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.17; 3849 participants; 10 studies) although no axillary surgery increased the risk of locoregional recurrence (HR ranging from 1.10 to 3.06; 20,863 person-years of follow-up; four studies). It was uncertain whether no surgery increased the risk of distant metastasis compared with ALND (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.30; 946 participants; two studies). Low-quality evidence indicated no axillary surgery decreased the risk of lymphoedema compared with ALND (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.43; 1714 participants; four studies). Axillary sampling versus ALND Six trials involving 1559 participants compared axillary sampling versus ALND. Low-quality evidence indicated similar effectiveness of axillary sampling compared with ALND in terms of overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.21; 967 participants; three studies) but it was unclear whether axillary sampling led to increased risk of local recurrence compared with ALND (HR 1.41, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.12; 1404 participants; three studies). The relative effectiveness of axillary sampling and ALND for locoregional recurrence (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.20; 406 participants; one study) and distant metastasis was uncertain (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.49; 406 participants; one study). Lymphoedema was less likely after axillary sampling than after ALND (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.81; 80 participants; one study). SLNB versus ALND Seven trials involving 9426 participants compared SLNB with ALND. Moderate-quality evidence showed similar overall survival following SLNB compared with ALND (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.25; 6352 participants; three studies; moderate-quality evidence). Differences in local recurrence (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.77; 516 participants; one study), locoregional recurrence (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.24; 5611 participants; one study) and distant metastasis (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.53; 516 participants; one study) were uncertain. However, studies showed little absolute difference in the aforementioned outcomes. Lymphoedema was less likely after SLNB than ALND (OR ranged from 0.04 to 0.60; three studies; 1965 participants; low-quality evidence). Three studies including 1755 participants reported quality of life: Investigators in two studies found quality of life better after SLNB than ALND, and in the other study observed no difference. RT versus ALND Four trials involving 2585 participants compared RT alone with ALND (with or without RT). High-quality evidence indicated that overall survival was reduced among women treated with radiotherapy alone compared with those treated with ALND (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.21; 2469 participants; four studies), and local recurrence was less likely in women treated with radiotherapy than in those treated with ALND (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99; 22,256 person-years of follow-up; four studies). Risk of distant metastasis was similar for radiotherapy alone as for ALND (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.25; 1313 participants; one study), and whether lymphoedema was less likely after RT alone than ALND remained uncertain (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.44; 200 participants; one study). Less surgery versus ALND When combining results from all trials, treatment involving less surgery was associated with reduced overall survival compared with ALND (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.17; 6478 participants; 18 studies). Whether local recurrence was reduced with less axillary surgery when compared with ALND was uncertain (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09; 24,176 participant-years of follow up; eight studies). Locoregional recurrence was more likely with less surgery than with ALND (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.78; 26,880 participant-years of follow-up; seven studies). Whether risk of distant metastasis was increased after less axillary surgery compared with ALND was uncertain (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.20; 2665 participants; five studies). Lymphoedema was less likely after less axillary surgery than with ALND (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.46; 3964 participants; nine studies).No studies reported on disease control in the axilla. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review confirms the benefit of SLNB and axillary sampling as alternatives to ALND for axillary staging, supporting the view that ALND of the clinically and radiologically uninvolved axilla is no longer acceptable practice in people with breast cancer.

Buprenorphine for treating cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong analgesics. Buprenorphine, fentanyl and morphine are examples of strong opioids used for cancer pain relief. However, strong opioids are ineffective as pain treatment in all patients and are not well-tolerated by all patients. The aim of this Cochrane review is to assess whether buprenorphine is associated with superior, inferior or equal pain relief and tolerability compared to other analgesic options for patients with cancer pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of buprenorphine for pain in adults and children with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library) issue 12 or 12 2014, MEDLINE (via OVID) 1948 to 20 January 2015, EMBASE (via OVID) 1980 to 20 January 2015, ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S) to 20 January 2015, ISI BIOSIS 1969 to 20 January 2015. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/; metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/) and the Proceedings of the Congress of the European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP; via European Journal of Pain Supplements) on 16 February 2015. We checked the bibliographic references of identified studies as well as relevant studies and systematic reviews to find additional trials not identified by the electronic searches. We contacted authors of included studies for other relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, with parallel-group or crossover design, comparing buprenorphine (any formulation and any route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including buprenorphine) for cancer background pain in adults and children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data pertaining to study design, participant details (including age, cancer characteristics, previous analgesic medication and setting), interventions (including details about titration) and outcomes, and independently assessed the quality of the included studies according to standard Cochrane methodology. As it was not feasible to meta-analyse the data, we summarised the results narratively. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: In this Cochrane review we identified 19 relevant studies including a total of 1421 patients that examined 16 different intervention comparisons.Of the studies that compared buprenorphine to another drug, 11 studies performed comparative analyses between the randomised groups, and five studies found that buprenorphine was superior to the comparison treatment. Three studies found no differences between buprenorphine and the comparison drug, while another three studies found treatment with buprenorphine to be inferior to the alternative treatment in terms of the side effects profile or patients preference/acceptability.Of the studies that compared different doses or formulations/routes of administration of buprenorphine, pain intensity ratings did not differ significantly between intramuscular buprenorphine and buprenorphine suppository. However, the average severity of dizziness, nausea, vomiting and adverse events as a total were all significantly higher in the intramuscular group relatively to the suppository group (one study).Sublingual buprenorphine was associated with faster onset of pain relief compared to subdermal buprenorphine, with similar duration analgesia and no significant differences in adverse event rates reported between the treatments (one study).In terms of transdermal buprenorphine, two studies found it superior to placebo, whereas a third study found no difference between placebo and different doses of transdermal buprenorphine.The studies that examined different doses of transdermal buprenorphine did not report a clear dose-response relationship.The quality of this evidence base was limited by under-reporting of most bias assessment items (e.g., the patient selection items), by small sample sizes in several included studies, by attrition (with data missing from 8.2% of the enrolled/randomised patients for efficacy and from 14.6% for safety) and by limited or no reporting of the expected outcomes in a number of cases. The evidence for all the outcomes was very low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, it is difficult to say where buprenorphine fits in the treatment of cancer pain with strong opioids. However, it might be considered to rank as a fourth-line option compared to the more standard therapies of morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl, and even there it would only be suitable for some patients. However, palliative care patients are often heterogeneous and complex, so having a number of analgesics available that can be given differently increases patient and prescriber choice. In particular, the sublingual and injectable routes seemed to have a more definable analgesic effect, whereas the transdermal route studies left more questions.

Oxycodone for cancer-related pain.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, of which oxycodone and morphine are examples. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all patients, nor are they well-tolerated by all patients. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for patients with cancer pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone for pain in adults with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), PsycINFO (Ovid) and PubMed to March 2014. We also searched Clinicaltrials.gov, metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), EU Clinical Trials Register and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We checked the bibliographic references of relevant identified studies and contacted the authors of the included studies to find additional trials not identified by the electronic searches. No language, date or publication status restrictions were applied to the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted study data (study design, participant details, interventions and outcomes) and independently assessed the quality of the included studies according to standard Cochrane methodology. Where possible, we meta-analysed the pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, otherwise these data were summarised narratively along with the adverse event and patient preference data. The overall quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies which enrolled/randomised 1390 patients with 1110 of these analysed for efficacy and 1170 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons. Four studies compared controlled release (CR) oxycodone to immediate release (IR) oxycodone and pooled analysis of three of these studies showed that the effects of CR and IR oxycodone on pain intensity after treatment were similar (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.06 to 0.26; low quality evidence). This was in line with the finding that none of the included studies reported differences in pain intensity between the treatment groups. Three of the four studies also found similar results for treatment acceptability and adverse events in the IR and CR groups; but one study reported that, compared to IR oxycodone, CR oxycodone was associated with significantly fewer adverse events.Six studies compared CR oxycodone to CR morphine and pooled analysis of five of these studies indicated that pain intensity did not differ significantly between the treatments (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.32; low quality evidence). There were no marked differences in adverse event rates, treatment acceptability or quality of life ratings.The remaining seven studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None of them found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability.The quality of this evidence base was limited by the risk of bias of the studies and by small sample sizes for many outcomes. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were under-reported, and the results were substantially compromised by attrition with data missing from more than 20% of the enrolled/randomised patients for efficacy and from more than 15% for safety. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the data included within this review suggest that oxycodone offers similar levels of pain relief and adverse events to other strong opioids including morphine, which is commonly considered the gold standard strong opioid. Our conclusions are consistent with other recent reviews and suggest that while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis it seems unlikely that larger head to head studies of oxycodone versus morphine will be justified. This means that for clinical purposes oxycodone or morphine can be used as first line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain.

Symptomatic diagnosis of cancer of the brain and central nervous system in primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review of diagnostic studies of symptomatic patients in primary care to quantify the risk of brain/central nervous system (CNS) cancer in patients presenting in primary care with symptoms that may indicate brain/CNS cancer. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the risk of brain/CNS cancer in symptomatic patients presenting in primary care. METHODS: We searched Medline, Premedline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ISI Proceedings (1980 to August 2014) and PsychInfo (1980 to February 2013) for diagnostic studies of symptomatic adult patients in primary care. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-II and data were extracted to calculate the positive predictive values (PPVs) of symptoms, singly or in combination, for brain/CNS cancer. RESULTS: Six studies with 159938 patients were included. The PPVs of single symptoms were very low with only 'new-onset seizure' being above 1% in patients aged 18 years and above, rising to 2.3% in patients aged 60-69 years. In patients aged 15-24 years, the PPVs for the individual symptoms were also very low, with the highest, also for seizure, being 0.024%, similar to that in children aged 0-14 years of 0.02%. For symptom combinations, none of the PPVs were above 0.39%. CONCLUSIONS: All the symptoms of brain tumours are individually low risk, apart from new-onset epilepsy. This provides a real diagnostic problem, as brain tumours have all the expected features seen with cancer diagnostic delay, with high proportions presenting as an emergency and having had multiple primary care consultations before referral, and the prognosis is poor. Improving these metrics can only be done by liberalizing investigation, although the health economics of that strategy is undetermined.

Oxycodone for Cancer Pain in Adult Patients.

CLINICAL QUESTION: Is oxycodone associated with greater efficacy and fewer adverse events compared with alternative analgesics for cancer pain? BOTTOM LINE: Oxycodone was not associated with superior cancer pain relief or fewer adverse effects compared with other strong opioids, such as morphine or oxymorphone. However, the quality of the evidence was low.

FDG-PET/CT imaging for mediastinal staging in patients with potentially resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the sensitivity and specificity of 18F-fludeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) imaging for detecting mediastinal lymph node involvement in patients with potentially resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)? BOTTOM LINE: Sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET/CT imaging ranged from 0.77 to 0.81 for sensitivity and 0.79 to 0.90 for specificity, and were related to the brand of scanner, NSCLC subtype, FDG dose, and country of study origin. These sensitivities and specificities are not sufficiently accurate to warrant reliance on FDG-PET/CT scanning alone to make decisions about surgery as a single option for patients with potentially resectable NSCLC. Instead FDG-PET/CT imaging should be used to determine whether the next step should be biopsy (endobronchial ultrasound-guided biopsy or mediastinoscopy) or surgical resection.

PET-CT for assessing mediastinal lymph node involvement in patients with suspected resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: A major determinant of treatment offered to patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is their intrathoracic (mediastinal) nodal status. If the disease has not spread to the ipsilateral mediastinal nodes, subcarinal (N2) nodes, or both, and the patient is otherwise considered fit for surgery, resection is often the treatment of choice. Planning the optimal treatment is therefore critically dependent on accurate staging of the disease. PET-CT (positron emission tomography-computed tomography) is a non-invasive staging method of the mediastinum, which is increasingly available and used by lung cancer multidisciplinary teams. Although the non-invasive nature of PET-CT constitutes one of its major advantages, PET-CT may be suboptimal in detecting malignancy in normal-sized lymph nodes and in ruling out malignancy in patients with coexisting inflammatory or infectious diseases. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of integrated PET-CT for mediastinal staging of patients with suspected or confirmed NSCLC that is potentially suitable for treatment with curative intent. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 30 April 2013: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via OvidSP (from 1946), Embase via OvidSP (from 1974), PreMEDLINE via OvidSP, OpenGrey, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and the trials register www.clinicaltrials.gov. There were no language or publication status restrictions on the search. We also contacted researchers in the field, checked reference lists, and conducted citation searches (with an end-date of 9 July 2013) of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Prospective or retrospective cross-sectional studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of integrated PET-CT for diagnosing N2 disease in patients with suspected resectable NSCLC. The studies must have used pathology as the reference standard and reported participants as the unit of analysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data pertaining to the study characteristics and the number of true and false positives and true and false negatives for the index test, and they independently assessed the quality of the included studies using QUADAS-2. We calculated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each study and performed two main analyses based on the criteria for test positivity employed: Activity > background or SUVmax ≥ 2.5 (SUVmax = maximum standardised uptake value), where we fitted a summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve using a hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) model for each subset of studies. We identified the average operating point on the SROC curve and computed the average sensitivities and specificities. We checked for heterogeneity and examined the robustness of the meta-analyses through sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 45 studies, and based on the criteria for PET-CT positivity, we categorised the included studies into three groups: Activity > background (18 studies, N = 2823, prevalence of N2 and N3 nodes = 679/2328), SUVmax ≥ 2.5 (12 studies, N = 1656, prevalence of N2 and N3 nodes = 465/1656), and Other/mixed (15 studies, N = 1616, prevalence of N2 to N3 nodes = 400/1616). None of the studies reported (any) adverse events. Under-reporting generally hampered the quality assessment of the studies, and in 30/45 studies, the applicability of the study populations was of high or unclear concern.The summary sensitivity and specificity estimates for the 'Activity > background PET-CT positivity criterion were 77.4% (95% CI 65.3 to 86.1) and 90.1% (95% CI 85.3 to 93.5), respectively, but the accuracy estimates of these studies in ROC space showed a wide prediction region. This indicated high between-study heterogeneity and a relatively large 95% confidence region around the summary value of sensitivity and specificity, denoting a lack of precision. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the overall estimate of sensitivity was especially susceptible to selection bias; reference standard bias; clear definition of test positivity; and to a lesser extent, index test bias and commercial funding bias, with lower combined estimates of sensitivity observed for all the low 'Risk of bias' studies compared with the full analysis.The summary sensitivity and specificity estimates for the SUVmax ≥ 2.5 PET-CT positivity criterion were 81.3% (95% CI 70.2 to 88.9) and 79.4% (95% CI 70 to 86.5), respectively.In this group, the accuracy estimates of these studies in ROC space also showed a very wide prediction region. This indicated very high between-study heterogeneity, and there was a relatively large 95% confidence region around the summary value of sensitivity and specificity, denoting a clear lack of precision. Sensitivity analyses suggested that both overall accuracy estimates were marginally sensitive to flow and timing bias and commercial funding bias, which both lead to slightly lower estimates of sensitivity and specificity.Heterogeneity analyses showed that the accuracy estimates were significantly influenced by country of study origin, percentage of participants with adenocarcinoma, (¹8F)-2-fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) dose, type of PET-CT scanner, and study size, but not by study design, consecutive recruitment, attenuation correction, year of publication, or tuberculosis incidence rate per 100,000 population. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review has shown that accuracy of PET-CT is insufficient to allow management based on PET-CT alone. The findings therefore support National Institute for Health and Care (formally 'clinical') Excellence (NICE) guidance on this topic, where PET-CT is used to guide clinicians in the next step: either a biopsy or where negative and nodes are small, directly to surgery. The apparent difference between the two main makes of PET-CT scanner is important and may influence the treatment decision in some circumstances. The differences in PET-CT accuracy estimates between scanner makes, NSCLC subtypes, FDG dose, and country of study origin, along with the general variability of results, suggest that all large centres should actively monitor their accuracy. This is so that they can make reliable decisions based on their own results and identify the populations in which PET-CT is of most use or potentially little value.

The positive symptoms of acute schizophrenia and latent inhibition in humans and animals: underpinned by the same process(es)?

INTRODUCTION: It has been suggested that the positive symptoms of acute schizophrenia are a consequence of a disruption of the process that produces latent inhibition (slower acquisition of conditioned responding after preexposure to the conditioned stimulus) and that this effect can be modelled by pro- and antipsychotic compounds in healthy participants and in nonhuman animals. This idea assumes that latent inhibition in humans and animals is underpinned by the same process(es). METHOD: First, we question the equivalence of human and animal latent inhibition. Second, we review the studies that have examined latent inhibition in populations with schizophrenia and in healthy populations after administration of amphetamine or haloperidol. RESULTS: Theoretical analysis of the similarities and differences in latent inhibition effects, and the procedures used to generate them, in humans and animals renders the suggested equivalence between them unconvincing. The studies examining latent inhibition in populations with schizophrenia and in healthy populations after administration of amphetamine or haloperidol are marked by a number of methodological shortcomings and reveal discrepant results. CONCLUSIONS: The theoretical and empirical analyses provide little support for a common process underlying deficits of latent inhibition in patients exhibiting positive symptoms of acute schizophrenia, and such deficits in experimental models in healthy humans and infrahumans.

Disentangling the attentional deficit in schizophrenia: pointers from schizotypy.

It has been argued that schizophrenia is associated with abnormalities in the allocation of attention, and that such abnormalities extend to members of the healthy population who are high in schizotypy; however, alternative interpretations of previous experimental evidence relating to this issue are possible. We present a learned irrelevance paradigm that provides a less equivocal measure of attentional processing during learning, and demonstrate a reliable reduction in learned irrelevance among healthy participants with high scores on a dimension of schizotypy corresponding to the positive symptoms of schizophrenia. These results support the suggestion that high schizotypy (and, by extension, schizophrenia) is associated with deficits in the appropriate allocation of attention.

Surgical or medical abortion of pregnancies between 13+0 and 23+6 weeks' gestation? A systematic review and new NICE national guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Abortion in the second trimester may be performed surgically or medically. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness, safety and acceptability/satisfaction of surgical compared with medical abortion of pregnancy between 13+0 and 23+6 weeks' gestation for a new national guideline. METHODS: We searched Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Library on 4 March 2019. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs; any size) and non-randomised comparative studies with n≥100 in each arm, published in English from 1985. Risk-of-bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration checklist for RCTs. Meta-analysis of risk ratios (RRs)used the Mantel-Haenszel method. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Two RCTs (n=140) were included. 'Incomplete abortion requiring surgical intervention' was clinically significantly higher with medical than surgical methods (RR=4.58, 95% CI 1.07 to 19.64). 'Abortion completed by the intended method' was statistically, but not clinically, significantly lower after medical than surgical methods, but was marked by high between-study heterogeneity (RR=0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.98). To the extent that 'haemorrhage requiring transfusion/≥500 mL blood loss', 'uterine injury', 'cervical injury requiring repair' and 'infection reported within 1 month of abortion' were reported, they did not differ significantly between methods. Depending on measurement method, 'patient satisfaction/acceptability' was either clinically significantly higher or comparable after surgical than medical methods. The quality of this evidence was limited by low event rates and attrition bias. CONCLUSION: Based on this evidence and consensus, women should be offered the choice of medical or surgical methods of abortion between 13+0 and 23+6 weeks' gestation, unless not clinically appropriate.

Simultaneous compared to interval administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for medical abortion up to 10+0 weeks' gestation: a systematic review with meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol usually involves an interval of 36-48 hours between administering these drugs; however, it is possible that the clinical efficacy at early gestations may be maintained when the drugs are taken simultaneously. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the safety and effectiveness of simultaneous compared with interval administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for abortion up to 10+0 weeks' gestation. METHODS: We searched Embase Classic, Embase; Ovid MEDLINE(R) including Daily, and Epub Ahead-of-Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; and Cochrane Library on 11 December 2019. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published in English from 1985, comparing simultaneous to interval administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for early abortion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration checklist for RCTs. Meta-analysis of risk ratios (RRs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method were performed. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Meta-analyses of three RCTs (n=1280) showed no differences in 'ongoing pregnancy' (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 8.36), 'haemorrhage requiring transfusion or ≥500 mL blood loss' (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.03) and 'incomplete abortion with the need for surgical intervention' (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.25) between the interventions. Individual study results showed no difference in patient satisfaction, or 'need for repeat misoprostol', although 'time to onset of bleeding or cramping' was longer after simultaneous than interval administration. The quality of evidence was very low to moderate. CONCLUSION: The published data support the use of simultaneous mifepristone and misoprostol for medical abortion up to 9+0 weeks in women who prefer this method of administration.

Access to and sustainability of abortion services: a systematic review and meta-analysis for the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence-new clinical guidelines for England.

BACKGROUND: Induced abortion is a common procedure. However, there is marked variation in accessibility of services across England. Accessing abortion services may be difficult, particularly for women who live in remote areas, are in the second trimester of pregnancy, have complex pre-existing conditions or have difficult social circumstances. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This article presents a two-part review undertaken for a new National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guideline on abortion care, and aiming to determine: the factors that help or hinder accessibility and sustainability of abortion services in England (qualitative review), and strategies that improve these factors, and/or other factors identified by stakeholders (quantitative review). Economic modelling was undertaken to estimate cost savings associated with reducing waiting times. SEARCH METHODS: Ovid Embase Classic and Embase, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid MEDLINE(R), PsycINFO, Cochrane Library via Wiley Online, Cinahl Plus and Web of Science Core Collection were searched for articles published up to November 2018. Studies were included if they were published in English after 2001, conducted in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries and were: qualitative studies reporting views of patients and/or staff on factors that help or hinder the accessibility and sustainability of a safe abortion service, or randomized or non-randomized studies that compared strategies to improve factors identified by the qualitative review and/or stakeholders. Studies were excluded if they were conducted in OECD countries where abortion is prohibited altogether or only performed to save the woman's life. One author assessed risk of bias of included studies using the following checklists: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for qualitative studies, Cochrane Collaboration quality checklist for randomized controlled trials, Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies, and Effective Practice and Organization of Care risk of bias tool for before-and-after studies.Qualitative evidence was combined using thematic analysis and overall quality of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual). Quantitative evidence was analysed in Review Manager 5.3 and overall quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. OUTCOMES: Eight themes (service level barriers; financial barriers; logistical barriers; personal barriers; legal and policy barriers; privacy and confidentiality concerns; training and education; community prescribing and telemedicine introduce greater flexibility) and 18 subthemes were identified from 23 papers (n = 1016) included in the qualitative review. The quality of evidence ranged from very low to high, with evidence for one theme and seven subthemes rated as high quality. Nine studies (n = 7061) were included in the quantitative review which showed that satisfaction was better (low to high quality evidence) and women were seen sooner (very low quality evidence) when care was led by nurses or midwives compared with physician-led services, women were seen sooner when they could self-refer (very low quality evidence), and clinicians were more likely to provide abortions if training used an opt-out model (very low quality evidence). Economic modelling showed that even small reductions in waiting times could result in large cost savings for services. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Self-referral, funding for travel and accommodation, reducing waiting times, remote assessment, community services, maximizing the role of nurses and midwives and including practical experience of performing abortion in core curriculums, unless the trainee opts out, should improve access to and sustainability of abortion services.