[Pregnancy contraception (Current Care Guideline)]. / KÄYPÄ HOITO -SUOSITUS (Tiivistelmä). Raskauden ehkäisy.

There are no age limits for the start or use of contraception. Prior gynecological examination or cervical smear is not needed. Condom is the only method that protects from sexually transmitted diseases. An increase in the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated only with combined contraceptives. However, the risk is remarkably higher with pregnancy, puerperium or with smoking. The most effective reversible methods are intrauterine devices (IUD) and implants, as these do not depend on daily memory. Natural family planning methods are not reliable, and effective contraception should be easily available for all at all times.

[Current Care Guideline: Eating disorders]. / Syömishäiriöt.

Early diagnosis with intervention is linked to better outcome. In primary care patients in risk for eating disorder should be screened and actively asked about eating disorder symptoms. Treatment is mainly out-patient care and should first be focused on gaining a normal nutritional status. It is important to involve the patient's family in the treatment. A confidential relationship between health care professionals and the patient is important. The patient's own motivation and readiness for recuperation are essential. Different therapeutic and psychosocial approaches are central in the treatment, as the disorders are psychiatric. Medical treatment may bring additional help in treating binge-eating disorder or bulimia nervosa, but it is seldom of help in treating anorexia nervosa.

The GRADE approach is reproducible in assessing the quality of evidence of quantitative evidence syntheses.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of assessing the quality of evidence (QoE) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: On completing two training exercises, participants worked independently as individual raters to assess the QoE of 16 outcomes. After recording their initial impression using a global rating, raters graded the QoE following the GRADE approach. Subsequently, randomly paired raters submitted a consensus rating. RESULTS: The IRR without using the GRADE approach for two individual raters was 0.31 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 0.21-0.42) among Health Research Methodology students (n = 10) and 0.27 (95% CI = 0.19-0.37) among the GRADE working group members (n = 15). The corresponding IRR of the GRADE approach in assessing the QoE was significantly higher, that is, 0.66 (95% CI = 0.56-0.75) and 0.72 (95% CI = 0.61-0.79), respectively. The IRR further increased for three (0.80 [95% CI = 0.73-0.86] and 0.74 [95% CI = 0.65-0.81]) or four raters (0.84 [95% CI = 0.78-0.89] and 0.79 [95% CI = 0.71-0.85]). The IRR did not improve when QoE was assessed through a consensus rating. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that trained individuals using the GRADE approach improves reliability in comparison to intuitive judgments about the QoE and that two individual raters can reliably assess the QoE using the GRADE system.