Primary Care Interventions to Prevent Child Maltreatment: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Child maltreatment is associated with serious negative physical, psychological, and behavioral consequences. Objective: To review the evidence on primary care-feasible or referable interventions to prevent child maltreatment to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through February 2, 2023; references, experts, and surveillance through December 6, 2023. Study Selection: English-language, randomized clinical trials of youth through age 18 years (or their caregivers) with no known exposure or signs or symptoms of current or past maltreatment. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers assessed titles/abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality, and extracted data; when at least 3 similar studies were available, meta-analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Directly measured reports of child abuse or neglect (reports to Child Protective Services or removal of the child from the home); proxy measures of abuse or neglect (injury, visits to the emergency department, hospitalization); behavioral, developmental, emotional, mental, or physical health and well-being; mortality; harms. Results: Twenty-five trials (N = 14 355 participants) were included; 23 included home visits. Evidence from 11 studies (5311 participants) indicated no differences in likelihood of reports to Child Protective Services within 1 year of intervention completion (pooled odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.84-1.27]). Five studies (3336 participants) found no differences in removal of the child from the home within 1 to 3 years of follow-up (pooled risk ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.37-2.99]). The evidence suggested no benefit for emergency department visits in the short term (<2 years) and hospitalizations. The evidence was inconclusive for all other outcomes because of the limited number of trials on each outcome and imprecise results. Among 2 trials reporting harms, neither reported statistically significant differences. Contextual evidence indicated (1) widely varying practices when screening, identifying, and reporting child maltreatment to Child Protective Services, including variations by race or ethnicity; (2) widely varying accuracy of screening instruments; and (3) evidence that child maltreatment interventions may be associated with improvements in some social determinants of health. Conclusion and Relevance: The evidence base on interventions feasible in or referable from primary care settings to prevent child maltreatment suggested no benefit or insufficient evidence for direct or proxy measures of child maltreatment. Little information was available about possible harms. Contextual evidence pointed to the potential for bias or inaccuracy in screening, identification, and reporting of child maltreatment but also highlighted the importance of addressing social determinants when intervening to prevent child maltreatment.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part I: Introduction, Risk Assessment, Staging, and Risk-Based Management.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part I of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts II and III for discussion of principles of active surveillance, surgery and follow-up (Part II), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Advancing the global physical activity agenda: recommendations for future research by the 2020 WHO physical activity and sedentary behavior guidelines development group.

BACKGROUND: In July, 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) commenced work to update the 2010 Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health and established a Guideline Development Group (GDG) comprising expert public health scientists and practitioners to inform the drafting of the 2020 Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior. The overall task of the GDG was to review the scientific evidence and provide expert advice to the WHO on the amount of physical activity and sedentary behavior associated with optimal health in children and adolescents, adults, older adults (> 64 years), and also specifically in pregnant and postpartum women and people living with chronic conditions or disabilities. METHODS: The GDG reviewed the available evidence specific to each sub-population using systematic protocols and in doing so, identified a number of gaps in the existing literature. These proposed research gaps were discussed and verified by expert consensus among the entire GDG. RESULTS: Evidence gaps across population sub-groups included a lack of information on: 1) the precise shape of the dose-response curve between physical activity and/or sedentary behavior and several of the health outcomes studied; 2) the health benefits of light-intensity physical activity and of breaking up sedentary time with light-intensity activity; 3) differences in the health effects of different types and domains of physical activity (leisure-time; occupational; transportation; household; education) and of sedentary behavior (occupational; screen time; television viewing); and 4) the joint association between physical activity and sedentary time with health outcomes across the life course. In addition, we acknowledge the need to conduct more population-based studies in low- and middle-income countries and in people living with disabilities and/or chronic disease, and to identify how various sociodemographic factors (age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status) modify the health effects of physical activity, in order to address global health disparities. CONCLUSIONS: Although the 2020 WHO Guidelines for Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior were informed by the most up-to-date research on the health effects of physical activity and sedentary time, there is still substantial work to be done in advancing the global physical activity agenda.

Assessment of Primary Care Clinician Concordance With Guidelines for Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain in the Veterans Affairs Health System.

Importance: Magnetic responance imaging (MRI) of the lumbar spine that is not concordant with treatment guidelines for low back pain represents an unnecessary cost for US health plans and may be associated with adverse effects. Use of MRI in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics remains unknown. Objective: To assess the use of MRI scans during the first 6 weeks (early MRI scans) of episodes of nonspecific low back pain in VA primary care sites and to determine if historical concordance can identify clinicians and sites that are the least concordant with guidelines. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of electronic health records from 944 VA primary care sites from the 3 years ending in 2016. Data were analyzed between January 2017 and August 2019. Participants were patients with new episodes of nonspecific low back pain and the primary care clinicians responsible for their care. Exposures: MRI scans. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of early MRI scans at VA primary care clinics was assessed. Clinician concordance with published guidelines over 2 years was used to select clinicians expected to have low concordance in a third year. Results: A total of 1 285 405 new episodes of nonspecific low back pain from 920 547 patients (mean [SD] age, 56.7 [15.8] years; 93.6% men) were attributed to 9098 clinicians (mean [SD] age, 52.1 [10.1] years; 55.7% women). An early MRI scan of the lumbar spine was performed in 31 132 of the episodes (2.42%; 95% CI, 2.40%-2.45%). Historical concordance was better than a random draw in selecting the 10% of clinicians who were subsequently the least concordant with published guidelines. For primary care clinicians, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.683 (95% CI, 0.658-0.701). For primary care sites, the area was under this curve was 0.8035 (95% CI, 0.754-0.855). The 10% of clinicians with the least historical concordance were responsible for just 19.2% of the early MRI scans performed in the follow-up year. Conclusions and Relevance: VA primary care clinics had low rates of use of early MRI scans. A history of low concordance with imaging guidelines was associated with subsequent low concordance but with limited potential to select clinicians most in need of interventions to implement guidelines.

Provider Perspectives of Patient Experiences in Primary Care Imaging.

BACKGROUND: Imaging tests are a widely used tool in primary care with many known benefits. Without an understanding of which outcomes matter the most to patients, clinicians are challenged to balance the benefits and harms of imaging tests. This study aimed to explore the perceived impacts imaging tests have on patients from the perspective of the primary care providers (PCPs) and determine PCPs' understanding of patient-centered outcomes (PCOs) from imaging tests. METHODS: Recruitment of PCPs occurred at 4 family medicine clinics in Washington and Idaho. Primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants who order imaging tests were eligible to participate. Semistructured interviews explored providers' perceptions of patient experiences during the process of ordering, performing and following up on imaging tests. Classic content analysis generated themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Sixteen PCPs, including 11 physicians, 3 physician assistants, and 2 nurse practitioners, completed interviews. Two themes were identified: 1) perceived PCOs, and 2) factors influencing the incorporation of PCOs into clinical management. Perceived outcomes included emotions related to the answer a test provides and costs to the patient such as monetary, physical, and added risk. Patient expectations, provider-patient communication, and inadequate knowledge all contributed as barriers to incorporating PCOs into clinical management. DISCUSSION: PCPs recognize different outcomes of imaging tests that they consider important for patients. While providers are perceptive to patient outcomes there remains a challenge to how patient outcomes are used to improve care. Communication with patients and improving provider knowledge are needed to incorporate identified PCOs.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: model of care and implementation.

PURPOSE: Spine-related disorders are a leading cause of global disability and are a burden on society and to public health. Currently, there is no comprehensive, evidence-based model of care for spine-related disorders, which includes back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, spinal diseases, and pathology, that could be applied in global health care settings. The purposes of this paper are to propose: (1) principles to transform the delivery of spine care; (2) an evidence-based model that could be applied globally; and (3) implementation suggestions. METHODS: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) meetings and literature reviews were synthesized into a seed document and distributed to spine care experts. After three rounds of a modified Delphi process, all participants reached consensus on the final model of care and implementation steps. RESULTS: Sixty-six experts representing 24 countries participated. The GSCI model of care has eight core principles: person-centered, people-centered, biopsychosocial, proactive, evidence-based, integrative, collaborative, and self-sustaining. The model of care includes a classification system and care pathway, levels of care, and a focus on the patient's journey. The six steps for implementation are initiation and preparation; assessment of the current situation; planning and designing solutions; implementation; assessment and evaluation of program; and sustain program and scale up. CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based, practical, sustainable, and scalable model of care representing eight core principles with a six-step implementation plan. The aim of this model is to help transform spine care globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries and underserved communities. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: methodology, contributors, and disclosures.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to describe the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) contributors, disclosures, and methods for reporting transparency on the development of the recommendations. METHODS: World Spine Care convened the GSCI to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable healthcare model for spinal care. The initiative aims to improve the management, prevention, and public health for spine-related disorders worldwide; thus, global representation was essential. A series of meetings established the initiative's mission and goals. Electronic surveys collected contributorship and demographic information, and experiences with spinal conditions to better understand perceptions and potential biases that were contributing to the model of care. RESULTS: Sixty-eight clinicians and scientists participated in the deliberations and are authors of one or more of the GSCI articles. Of these experts, 57 reported providing spine care in 34 countries, (i.e., low-, middle-, and high-income countries, as well as underserved communities in high-income countries.) The majority reported personally experiencing or having a close family member with one or more spinal concerns including: spine-related trauma or injury, spinal problems that required emergency or surgical intervention, spinal pain referred from non-spine sources, spinal deformity, spinal pathology or disease, neurological problems, and/or mild, moderate, or severe back or neck pain. There were no substantial reported conflicts of interest. CONCLUSION: The GSCI participants have broad professional experience and wide international distribution with no discipline dominating the deliberations. The GSCI believes this set of papers has the potential to inform and improve spine care globally. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: World Spine Care executive summary on reducing spine-related disability in low- and middle-income communities.

PURPOSE: Spinal disorders, including back and neck pain, are major causes of disability, economic hardship, and morbidity, especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries. Currently, there is no model of care to address this issue. This paper provides an overview of the papers from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI), which was convened to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable, spinal healthcare model for communities around the world with various levels of resources. METHODS: Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders. RESULTS: Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care. CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions.

Many clinical practice guidelines recommend similar approaches for the assessment and management of low back pain. Recommendations include use of a biopsychosocial framework to guide management with initial non-pharmacological treatment, including education that supports self-management and resumption of normal activities and exercise, and psychological programmes for those with persistent symptoms. Guidelines recommend prudent use of medication, imaging, and surgery. The recommendations are based on trials almost exclusively from high-income countries, focused mainly on treatments rather than on prevention, with limited data for cost-effectiveness. However, globally, gaps between evidence and practice exist, with limited use of recommended first-line treatments and inappropriately high use of imaging, rest, opioids, spinal injections, and surgery. Doing more of the same will not reduce back-related disability or its long-term consequences. The advances with the greatest potential are arguably those that align practice with the evidence, reduce the focus on spinal abnormalities, and ensure promotion of activity and function, including work participation. We have identified effective, promising, or emerging solutions that could offer new directions, but that need greater attention and further research to determine if they are appropriate for large-scale implementation. These potential solutions include focused strategies to implement best practice, the redesign of clinical pathways, integrated health and occupational interventions to reduce work disability, changes in compensation and disability claims policies, and public health and prevention strategies.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: a systematic review for the assessment of spine-related complaints in populations with limited resources and in low- and middle-income communities.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic literature review was to develop recommendations for the assessment of spine-related complaints in medically underserved areas with limited resources. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and best evidence synthesis of guidelines on the assessment of spine-related complaints. Independent reviewers critically appraised eligible guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II criteria. Low risk of bias clinical practice guidelines was used to develop recommendations. In accordance with the mandate of the Global Spinal Care Initiative (GSCI), recommendations were selected that could be applied to medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries by considering the limited access and costs of diagnostic technologies. RESULTS: We screened 3069 citations; 20 guidelines were eligible for critical appraisal. We used 13 that had a low risk of bias that targeted neck and back pain. CONCLUSIONS: When assessing patients with spine-related complaints in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries, we recommend that clinicians should: (1) take a clinical history to determine signs or symptoms suggesting serious pathology (red flags) and psychological factors (yellow flags); (2) perform a physical examination (musculoskeletal and neurological); (3) do not routinely obtain diagnostic imaging; (4) obtain diagnostic imaging and/or laboratory tests when serious pathologies are suspected, and/or presence of progressive neurologic deficits, and/or disabling persistent pain; (5) do not perform electromyography or nerve conduction studies for diagnosis of intervertebral disc disease with radiculopathy; and (6) do not perform discography for the assessment of spinal disorders. This information can be used to inform the GSCI care pathway and model of care. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: a narrative review of psychological and social issues in back pain in low- and middle-income communities.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to describe psychological and social factors associated with low back pain that could be applied in spine care programs in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We performed a narrative review of cohort, cross-sectional, qualitative and mixed methods studies investigating adults with low back pain using Medline and PubMed were searched from January 2000 to June 2015. Eligible studies had at least one of the following outcomes: psychological, social, psychosocial, or cultural/ethnicity factors. Studies met the following criteria: (1) English language, (2) published in peer-reviewed journal, (3) adults with spinal disorders, (4) included treatment, symptom management or prevention. RESULTS: Out of 58 studies, 29 were included in this review. There are few studies that have evaluated psychological and social factors associated with back pain in low- and middle-income communities, therefore, adapting recommendations from other regions may be needed until further studies can be achieved. CONCLUSION: Psychological and social factors are important components to addressing low back pain and health care providers play an important role in empowering patients to take control of their spinal health outcomes. Patients should be included in negotiating their spinal treatment and establishing treatment goals through careful listening, reassurance, and information providing by the health care provider. Instruments need to be developed for people with low literacy in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries, especially where psychological and social factors may be difficult to detect and are poorly addressed. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain--United States, 2016.

IMPORTANCE: Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with serious risks, including opioid use disorder and overdose. OBJECTIVE: To provide recommendations about opioid prescribing for primary care clinicians treating adult patients with chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. PROCESS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated a 2014 systematic review on effectiveness and risks of opioids and conducted a supplemental review on benefits and harms, values and preferences, and costs. CDC used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess evidence type and determine the recommendation category. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Evidence consisted of observational studies or randomized clinical trials with notable limitations, characterized as low quality using GRADE methodology. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the limited number of studies, variability in study designs and clinical heterogeneity, and methodological shortcomings of studies. No study evaluated long-term (≥1 year) benefit of opioids for chronic pain. Opioids were associated with increased risks, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death, with dose-dependent effects. RECOMMENDATIONS: There are 12 recommendations. Of primary importance, nonopioid therapy is preferred for treatment of chronic pain. Opioids should be used only when benefits for pain and function are expected to outweigh risks. Before starting opioids, clinicians should establish treatment goals with patients and consider how opioids will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks. When opioids are used, clinicians should prescribe the lowest effective dosage, carefully reassess benefits and risks when considering increasing dosage to 50 morphine milligram equivalents or more per day, and avoid concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines whenever possible. Clinicians should evaluate benefits and harms of continued opioid therapy with patients every 3 months or more frequently and review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, for high-risk combinations or dosages. For patients with opioid use disorder, clinicians should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The guideline is intended to improve communication about benefits and risks of opioids for chronic pain, improve safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce risks associated with long-term opioid therapy.

Twelve recommendations for integrating existing systematic reviews into new reviews: EPC guidance.

OBJECTIVES: As time and cost constraints in the conduct of systematic reviews increase, the need to consider the use of existing systematic reviews also increases. We developed guidance on the integration of systematic reviews into new reviews. METHODS: A workgroup of methodologists from Evidence-based Practice Centers developed consensus-based recommendations. Discussions were informed by a literature scan and by interviews with organizations that conduct systematic reviews. RESULTS: Twelve recommendations were developed addressing selecting reviews, assessing risk of bias, qualitative and quantitative synthesis, and summarizing and assessing body of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: We provide preliminary guidance for an efficient and unbiased approach to integrating existing systematic reviews with primary studies in a new review.

Prospective diagnostic test accuracy comparison of computed tomography during arterial portography and Primovist magnetic resonance imaging in the pre-operative assessment of colorectal cancer liver metastases.

OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the accuracy and inter-observer agreement for the detection of liver lesions using Primovist magnetic resonance imaging (pMRI) and computed tomography during arterial portography (CTAP). METHODS: Patients evaluated at St George Hospital Liver Unit for colorectal liver metastases (CRCLM) underwent CTAP as part of standard staging. pMRI was added to the pre-operative assessment. Two radiologists reported CTAP and two reported pMRI. The sensitivity and specificity of CTAP and pMRI were calculated using histopathology as the gold standard. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 62 patients corresponding to 219 lesions confirmed on histopathology. Agreement on the detection of lesions between the two radiologists that reported pMRI was higher than for CTAP (Kappa = 0.80 versus 0.74). Specificity of lesion detection for pMRI was 0.88 and 0.83 for CTAP (P = 0.112). Sensitivity for pMRI was 0.83 and 0.81 for CTAP. For patients who had chemotherapy before evaluation, pMRI had a significantly higher specificity than CTAP (0.79 versus 0.63, P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: pMRI is less invasive, has a good inter-observer agreement, has comparable sensitivity and specificity to CTAP in the pre-chemotherapy population and demonstrates better specificity in patients assessed post-chemotherapy. pMRI is a valid alternative to CTAP in the assessment of CRCLM.

Pressure ulcer risk assessment and prevention: a systematic comparative effectiveness review.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are associated with substantial health burdens but may be preventable. PURPOSE: To review the clinical utility of pressure ulcer risk assessment instruments and the comparative effectiveness of preventive interventions in persons at higher risk. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1946 through November 2012), CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, grant databases, clinical trial registries, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials and observational studies on effects of using risk assessment on clinical outcomes and randomized trials of preventive interventions on clinical outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Multiple investigators abstracted and checked study details and quality using predefined criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: One good-quality trial found no evidence that use of a pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument, with or without a protocolized intervention strategy based on assessed risk, reduces risk for incident pressure ulcers compared with less standardized risk assessment based on nurses' clinical judgment. In higher-risk populations, 1 good-quality and 4 fair-quality randomized trials found that more advanced static support surfaces were associated with lower risk for pressure ulcers compared with standard mattresses (relative risk range, 0.20 to 0.60). Evidence on the effectiveness of low-air-loss and alternating-air mattresses was limited, with some trials showing no clear differences from advanced static support surfaces. Evidence on the effectiveness of nutritional supplementation, repositioning, and skin care interventions versus usual care was limited and had methodological shortcomings, precluding strong conclusions. LIMITATION: Only English-language articles were included, publication bias could not be formally assessed, and most studies had methodological shortcomings. CONCLUSION: More advanced static support surfaces are more effective than standard mattresses for preventing ulcers in higher-risk populations. The effectiveness of formal risk assessment instruments and associated intervention protocols compared with less standardized assessment methods and the effectiveness of other preventive interventions compared with usual care have not been clearly established.

Effectiveness and harms of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in spine fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) is used as a bone graft substitute in spinal fusion, which unites (fuses) bones in the spine. The accuracy and completeness of journal publications of industry-sponsored trials on the effectiveness and harms of rhBMP-2 has been called into question. PURPOSE: To independently assess the effectiveness and harms of rhBMP-2 in spinal fusion and reporting bias in industry-sponsored journal publications. DATA SOURCES: Individual-patient data (IPD) from 17 industry-sponsored studies; related internal documents; and searches of MEDLINE (1996 to August 2012), other databases, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies of rhBMP-2 versus any control and uncontrolled studies of harms. DATA EXTRACTION: Effectiveness outcomes in IPD were recalculated using consistent definitions. Study characteristics and results were abstracted by 1 investigator and confirmed by another. Two investigators independently assessed quality using predefined criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirteen RCTs and 31 cohort studies were included. For lumbar spine fusion, rhBMP-2 and iliac crest bone graft were similar in overall success, fusion, and other effectiveness measures and in risk for any adverse event, although rates were high across interventions (77% to 93% at 24 months from surgery). For anterior lumbar interbody fusion, rhBMP-2 was associated with nonsignificantly increased risk for retrograde ejaculation and urogenital problems. For anterior cervical spine fusion, rhBMP-2 was associated with increased risk for wound complications and dysphagia. At 24 months, the cancer risk was increased with rhBMP-2 (risk ratio, 3.45 [95% CI, 1.98 to 6.00]), but event rates were low and cancer was heterogeneous. Early journal publications misrepresented the effectiveness and harms through selective reporting, duplicate publication, and underreporting. LIMITATIONS: Outcome assessment was not blinded, and ascertainment of harms in trials was poor. No trials were truly independent of industry sponsorship. CONCLUSION: In spinal fusion, rhBMP-2 has no proven clinical advantage over bone graft and may be associated with important harms, making it difficult to identify clear indications for rhBMP-2. Earlier disclosure of all relevant data would have better informed clinicians and the public than the initial published trial reports did. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Yale University and Medtronic.

Upper endoscopy for gastroesophageal reflux disease: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Upper endoscopy is commonly used in the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Evidence demonstrates that it is indicated only in certain situations, and inappropriate use generates unnecessary costs and exposes patients to harms without improving outcomes. METHODS: The Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians reviewed evidence regarding the indications for, and yield of, upper endoscopy in the setting of GERD, and to highlight how clinicians can increase the delivery of high-value health care. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Upper endoscopy is indicated in men and women with heartburn and alarm symptoms (dysphagia, bleeding, anemia, weight loss, and recurrent vomiting). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Upper endoscopy is indicated in men and women with: Typical GERD symptoms that persist despite a therapeutic trial of 4 to 8 weeks of twice-daily proton-pump inhibitor therapy. Severe erosive esophagitis after a 2-month course of proton-pump inhibitor therapy to assess healing and rule out Barrett esophagus. Recurrent endoscopy after this follow-up examination is not indicated in the absence of Barrett esophagus. History of esophageal stricture who have recurrent symptoms of dysphagia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Upper endoscopy may be indicated: In men older than 50 years with chronic GERD symptoms (symptoms for more than 5 years) and additional risk factors (nocturnal reflux symptoms, hiatal hernia, elevated body mass index, tobacco use, and intra-abdominal distribution of fat) to detect esophageal adenocarcinoma and Barrett esophagus. For surveillance evaluation in men and women with a history of Barrett esophagus. In men and women with Barrett esophagus and no dysplasia, surveillance examinations should occur at intervals no more frequently than 3 to 5 years. More frequent intervals are indicated in patients with Barrett esophagus and dysplasia.

USPSTF perspective on evidence-based preventive recommendations for children.

The development and use of evidence-based recommendations for preventive care by primary care providers caring for children is an ongoing challenge. This issue is further complicated by the fact that a higher proportion of recommendations by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for pediatric preventive services in comparison with adult services have insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the service. One important root cause for this problem is the relative lack of high quality screening and counseling studies in pediatric primary care settings. The paucity of studies limits the development of additional evidence-based guidelines to enhance best practices for pediatric and adolescent conditions. In this article, we describe the following: (1) evidence-based primary care preventive services as a strategy for addressing important pediatric morbidities, (2) the process of making evidence-based screening recommendations by the USPSTF, (3) the current library of USPSTF recommendations for children and adolescents, and (4) factors influencing the use of USPSTF recommendations and other evidence-based guidelines by clinicians. Strategies to accelerate the implementation of evidence-based services and areas of need for future research to fill key gaps in evidence-based recommendations and guidelines are highlighted.