Does a multidisciplinary menopausal symptoms after cancer clinic reduce symptoms?

PURPOSE: This study aimed to measure the prevalence of menopausal symptoms in patients attending a multidisciplinary model of care clinic at their initial clinic visit and their subsequent follow-up consultation using a validated patient-reported outcome measure to assess whether menopausal symptoms after cancer had improved. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of patients attending the clinic in a 12-month period in 2017 (n = 189). Recorded variables included patient demographics, details of index cancer, previous treatments, and menopausal symptom management strategies. Severity of menopausal symptoms was evaluated using the Greene Climacteric Scale. The extent to which patients were bothered by symptoms was combined into two categories and dichotomized (present/absent). Differences in symptom prevalence between the initial consultation and first follow-up visit were examined using McNemar's test. RESULTS: The majority of patients attending the clinic had a history of breast cancer (72%). Fifty-five percent of patients were prescribed a non-hormonal therapy at their initial visit, most commonly gabapentin. Significantly fewer patients reported being bothered by hot flushes, fatigue, sleep difficulties, and loss of interest in sex, anxiety, or troubles concentrating at the first follow-up visit compared to their initial consultation (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In this study, there was an improvement in self-reported menopausal symptoms in a significant proportion of cancer survivors attending a multidisciplinary menopause clinic between their initial and first subsequent follow-up consultations.

Defining 'reasonable medical certainty' in court: What does it mean to medical experts in child abuse cases?

Physicians and others who provide expert testimony in court cases involving alleged child abuse may be instructed to state their conclusions within a 'reasonable medical certainty' (RMC). However, neither judges nor jurors knows what degree of probability constitutes RMC for a given expert, nor whether different experts use different standards to formulate their opinions. We sought to better understand how experts define RMC in the context of court cases. An email survey was sent to members of six list-serves, representing four specialties, whose members testify in child abuse cases. Respondents were asked to define how RMC corresponded to (1) the numerical probability that abuse occurred, (2) the ordinal probability, and (3) how their determinations relate to common legal standards ('preponderance of the evidence', 'clear and convincing', and 'beyond a reasonable doubt'). Participants were also asked how comfortable they were in defining RMC; whether their definition changed according to the charges or type of proceeding; and how they would apply RMC to several hypothetical cases. The 294 list-serve participants who responded included child abuse pediatricians (46%), forensic pathologists (21%), pediatric neurosurgeons (15%), pediatric ophthalmologists (12%), and others (6%). Though 95% of respondents had testified in court, only 45% had received training in the definition of RMC. Only 37% were comfortable defining RMC. Although many responses were highly clustered and paired comparisons showed that 95% of participants' responses were internally consistent, there was variability in respondents' definitions of RMC. There is some variability in how child abuse expert witnesses define and use the term RMC; we provide suggestions about how to more accurately and transparently define RMC to ensure justice in these cases.