Dutch Guideline on Knee Arthroscopy Part 1, the meniscus: a multidisciplinary review by the Dutch Orthopaedic Association.

Background and purpose - A guideline committee of medical specialists and a physiotherapist was formed on the initiative of the Dutch Orthopedic Association (NOV) to update the guideline Arthroscopy of the Knee: Indications and Treatment 2010. This next guideline was developed between June 2017 and December 2019. In this Part 1 we focus on the meniscus, in Part 2 on all other aspects of knee arthroscopy.Methods - The guideline was developed in accordance with the criteria of the AGREE instrument (AGREE II: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) with support of a professional methodologist from the Dutch Knowledge Institute of Medical Specialists. The scientific literature was searched and systematically analyzed. Conclusions and recommendations were formulated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method. Recommendations were developed considering the balance of benefits and harms, the type and quality of evidence, the values and preferences of the people involved, and the costs.

Combined oral contraceptives: venous thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Combined oral contraceptive (COC) use has been associated with venous thrombosis (VT) (i.e., deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism). The VT risk has been evaluated for many estrogen doses and progestagen types contained in COC but no comprehensive comparison involving commonly used COC is available. OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive overview of the risk of venous thrombosis in women using different combined oral contraceptives. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier and ScienceDirect) were searched in 22 April 2013 for eligible studies, without language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected studies including healthy women taking COC with VT as outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome of interest was a fatal or non-fatal first event of venous thrombosis with the main focus on deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Publications with at least 10 events in total were eligible. The network meta-analysis was performed using an extension of frequentist random effects models for mixed multiple treatment comparisons. Unadjusted relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were reported.Two independent reviewers extracted data from selected studies. MAIN RESULTS: 3110 publications were retrieved through a search strategy; 25 publications reporting on 26 studies were included. Incidence of venous thrombosis in non-users from two included cohorts was 0.19 and 0.37 per 1 000 person years, in line with previously reported incidences of 0,16 per 1 000 person years. Use of combined oral contraceptives increased the risk of venous thrombosis compared with non-use (relative risk 3.5, 95% confidence interval 2.9 to 4.3). The relative risk of venous thrombosis for combined oral contraceptives with 30-35 µg ethinylestradiol and gestodene, desogestrel, cyproterone acetate, or drospirenone were similar and about 50-80% higher than for combined oral contraceptives with levonorgestrel. A dose related effect of ethinylestradiol was observed for gestodene, desogestrel, and levonorgestrel, with higher doses being associated with higher thrombosis risk. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All combined oral contraceptives investigated in this analysis were associated with an increased risk of venous thrombosis. The effect size depended both on the progestogen used and the dose of ethinylestradiol. Risk of venous thrombosis for combined oral contraceptives with 30-35 µg ethinylestradiol and gestodene, desogestrel, cyproterone acetate and drospirenone were similar, and about 50-80% higher than with levonorgestrel. The combined oral contraceptive with the lowest possible dose of ethinylestradiol and good compliance should be prescribed-that is, 30 µg ethinylestradiol with levonorgestrel.

GRADE Notes 3: two approaches to assess industry sponsorship bias used by two Dutch guidelines organizations.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to develop a step-by-step approach for our institutes to evaluate the influence of the funding body 1. on risk of bias of an individual study and 2. on publication bias in reviews and meta-analyses for guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Methodologists from guideline organizations in the Netherlands discussed the influence of the funding body in clinical trials researching interventions. Results were discussed in our organizations and presented at the Dutch GRADE Network. RESULTS: Two step-by-step approaches were developed to guide methodologists from our institutes in assessing the influence of the funding body 1. on risk of bias of an individual study and 2. on publication bias in reviews and meta-analyses for guidelines. For risk of bias, the involvement of the funding body in the study is checked as well as the direction of the effect. For publication bias, the exploration by the authors is evaluated, and any difference between industry-funded and non-funded studies in effect is checked. Guiding questions were proposed. CONCLUSION: The step-by-step approaches make the evaluation of the influence of the funding body more objective and transparent in our institutes. The developed approaches will also be brought forward to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group.

Mammographic density and markers of socioeconomic status: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic status (SES) is known to be positively associated with breast cancer risk but its relationship with mammographic density, a marker of susceptibility to breast cancer, is unclear. This study aims to investigate whether mammographic density varies by SES and to identify the underlying anthropometric, lifestyle and reproductive factors leading to such variation. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study of mammographic density in 487 pre-menopausal women, SES was assessed from questionnaire data using highest achieved level of formal education, quintiles of Census-derived Townsend scores and urban/rural classification of place of residence. Mammographic density was measured on digitised films using a computer-assisted method. Linear regression models were fitted to assess the association between SES variables and mammographic density, adjusting for correlated variables. RESULTS: In unadjusted models, percent density was positively associated with SES, with an absolute difference in percent density of 6.3% (95% CI 1.6%, 10.5%) between highest and lowest educational categories, and of 6.6% (95% CI -0.7%, 12.9%) between highest and lowest Townsend quintiles. These associations were mainly driven by strong negative associations between these SES variables and lucent area and were attenuated upon adjustment for body mass index (BMI). There was little evidence that reproductive factors explained this association. SES was not associated with the amount of dense tissue in the breast before or after BMI adjustment. The effect of education on percent density persisted after adjustment for Townsend score. Mammographic measures did not vary according to urban/rural place of residence. CONCLUSIONS: The observed SES gradients in percent density paralleled known SES gradients in breast cancer risk. Although consistent with the hypothesis that percent density may be a mediator of the SES differentials in breast cancer risk, the SES gradients in percent density were mainly driven by the negative association between SES and BMI. Nevertheless, as density affects the sensitivity of screen-film mammography, the higher percent density found among high SES women would imply that these women have a higher risk of developing cancer but a lower likelihood of having it detected earlier.

Genetic variation in the first-pass metabolism of ethinylestradiol, sex hormone binding globulin levels and venous thrombosis risk.

BACKGROUND: Use of ethinylestradiol, one of the active ingredients in combined oral contraceptives, affects the incidence of venous thrombosis. To explain why some women develop thrombosis when using oral contraceptives and others do not, we hypothesized a role for the first-pass metabolism of ethinylestradiol in the liver. We set out to determine the association between genetic variation in the first-pass metabolism of ethinylestradiol, venous thrombosis risk and the effect on Sex-hormone-binding-globulin (SHBG) levels. METHODS: Premenopausal women were included from two case-control studies: LETS (103 cases; 159 controls) and MEGA (397 cases; 796 controls). Haplotype-tagging SNPs were selected in 11 candidate genes; COMT, CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP3A4, CYP3A5, SULT1A1, SULT1E1, UGT1A1, UGT1A3, UGT1A9, UGT2B7. Venous thrombosis risk was expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For SHBG levels, mean differences with 95%CI were estimated in combined oral contraceptive-using control subjects from the MEGA study. RESULTS: Two copies of haplotype D in the UGT2B7 gene increased venous thrombosis risk (ORLETS: 3.78; ORMEGA: 2.61) as well as SHBG levels (mean difference 27.6nmol/L, 95%CI: -61.7 to 116.9 compared with no copies) in oral contraceptive users and not in non-users. In oral contraceptive users, haplotype A and B in the CYP3A4 gene were associated with venous thrombosis risk, but not in non-users; however, the effect on SHBG levels was not directional with the risk. None of the other haplotypes were associated with venous thrombosis. CONCLUSION: Genetic variation in the UGT2B7 gene may, in part, explain venous thrombosis risk in combined oral contraceptive users.

Different combined oral contraceptives and the risk of venous thrombosis: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive overview of the risk of venous thrombosis in women using different combined oral contraceptives. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Academic Search Premier, and ScienceDirect up to 22 April 2013. REVIEW METHODS: Observational studies that assessed the effect of combined oral contraceptives on venous thrombosis in healthy women. The primary outcome of interest was a fatal or non-fatal first event of venous thrombosis with the main focus on deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Publications with at least 10 events in total were eligible. The network meta-analysis was performed using an extension of frequentist random effects models for mixed multiple treatment comparisons. Unadjusted relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were reported. The requirement for crude numbers did not allow adjustment for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: 3110 publications were retrieved through a search strategy; 25 publications reporting on 26 studies were included. Incidence of venous thrombosis in non-users from two included cohorts was 1.9 and 3.7 per 10,000 woman years, in line with previously reported incidences of 1-6 per 10,000 woman years. Use of combined oral contraceptives increased the risk of venous thrombosis compared with non-use (relative risk 3.5, 95% confidence interval 2.9 to 4.3). The relative risk of venous thrombosis for combined oral contraceptives with 30-35 µg ethinylestradiol and gestodene, desogestrel, cyproterone acetate, or drospirenone were similar and about 50-80% higher than for combined oral contraceptives with levonorgestrel. A dose related effect of ethinylestradiol was observed for gestodene, desogestrel, and levonorgestrel, with higher doses being associated with higher thrombosis risk. CONCLUSION: All combined oral contraceptives investigated in this analysis were associated with an increased risk of venous thrombosis. The effect size depended both on the progestogen used and the dose of ethinylestradiol.