BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine最新文献

Objectives: To examine disparities in attendance rates at cancer screening services between transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) people in comparison with their cisgender (CG) counterparts, and to determine whether these differences were based on the anatomical organ screened.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources: PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid), CINAHL Complete (via EBSCO) and Cochrane Library from inception to 30 September 2023.

Methods: Studies for inclusion were case-control or cross-sectional studies with quantitative data that investigated TGD adults attending any cancer screening service. Exclusion criteria were studies with participants who were ineligible for cancer screening or without samples from TGD individuals, qualitative data and a cancer diagnosis from symptomatic presentation or incidental findings. A modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias, during which seven reports were found incompatible with the inclusion criteria and excluded. Results were synthesised through random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis.

Results: We identified 25 eligible records, of which 18 were included in the analysis. These were cross-sectional studies, including retrospective chart reviews and survey analyses, and encompassed over 14.8 million participants. The main outcomes measured were up-to-date (UTD) and lifetime (LT) attendance. Meta-analysis found differences for UTD cervical (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60, p<0.0001) and mammography (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.87, p=0.02) but not for prostate or colorectal screening. There were no meaningful differences seen in LT attendance based on quantitative synthesis. Narrative synthesis of the seven remaining articles mostly supported the meta-analysis. Reduced rates of screening engagement in TGD participants were found for UTD cervical and mammography screening, alongside LT mammography screening.

Conclusions: Compared with their CG counterparts, TGD individuals had lower rates of using cervical and mammography screening at the recommended frequencies but displayed similar prevalences of LT attendance. The greatest disparity was seen in UTD cervical screening. Limitations of this review included high risk of bias within studies, high heterogeneity and a lack of resources for further statistical testing. Bridging gaps in healthcare to improve cancer screening experiences and outcomes will require consolidated efforts including working with the TGD community.

Prospero registration number: CRD42022368911.

Objectively measuring physical activity (PA) has consistently shown an association with reduced all-cause mortality risk in cross-sectional studies. However, the strength of this association may change over time. We quantify the time-varying, covariate-adjusted association between the total volume of PA and all-cause mortality over a 12-year follow-up period using Cox regression with a time varying effect of population-referenced quantile total activity count adjusted for traditional risk factors. Analyses focus on participants 50-84 years old with adequate accelerometer wear time and without missing covariates. The findings suggest that (1) the use of baseline PA in Cox models with long follow-up periods may be inappropriate without time-varying effects and (2) the use of accelerometry derived volume of PA in risk score calculations may be most appropriate for short-term to medium-term risk scores.

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate (1) the effect and safety of acupuncture in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and explore (2) whether the effect of acupuncture differed according to acupuncture type, acupuncture dose and follow-up time.

Design: Systematic review and pairwise and exploratory network meta-analysis.

Setting: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals and Wanfang from inception to 13 November 2023.

Participants: Randomised controlled trials comparing acupuncture with sham acupuncture, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), usual care or waiting list groups, intra-articular (IA) injection and blank groups in patients with KOA.

Interventions: Eligible interventions included manual acupuncture (MA) and electroacupuncture (EA).

Main outcomes measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity at the end of treatment.

Results: 80 trials (9933 participants) were included. Very low certainty evidence suggested that acupuncture may reduce pain intensity compared with sham acupuncture (standardised mean difference, SMD -0.74, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.39, corresponded to a difference in Visual Analogue Scale of -18.50 mm, -27.00 to -9.75), NSAIDs (SMD -0.86 -1.26 to -0.46, corresponded to -21.50 mm, -31.50 to -11.50), usual care or waiting list groups (SMD -1.01, -1.47 to -0.54, corresponded to -25.25 mm, -36.75 to -13.50) and blank groups (SMD -1.65, -1.99 to -1.32, corresponded to -41.25 mm, -49.75 to -33.00), but not IA injection. Similar results were also found in other outcomes. For most of the subgroup analyses, acupuncture type, acupuncture dose and follow-up time did not show a significant relative effect. Only when compared with NSAIDs, a higher dose of acupuncture may provide greater pain relief (interaction p<0.001). The network meta-analysis revealed that electroacupuncture (SMD -0.75, 95% CI -1.34 to -0.17) had a greater effect on pain relief in patients with KOA compared with manual acupuncture.

Conclusions: The findings suggest that acupuncture may provide clinically important effects in reducing pain and improving physical function in patients with KOA, but the certainty of evidence was very low. Electroacupuncture and higher dose of acupuncture probably are two potential contributing factors.

Prospero registration number: CRD42021232177.

Despite the increasing number of radiological case reports, the majority lack a standardised methodology of writing and reporting. We therefore develop a reporting guideline for radiological case reports based on the CAse REport (CARE) statement. We established a multidisciplinary group of experts, comprising 40 radiologists, methodologists, journal editors and researchers, to develop a reporting guideline for radiological case reports according to the methodology recommended by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research network. The Delphi panel was requested to evaluate the significance of a list of elements for potential inclusion in a guideline for reporting mediation analyses. By reviewing the reporting guidelines and through discussion, we initially drafted 46 potential items. Following a Delphi survey and discussion, the final CARE-radiology checklist is comprised of 38 items in 16 domains. CARE-radiology is a comprehensive reporting guideline for radiological case reports developed using a rigorous methodology. We hope that compliance with CARE-radiology will help in the future to improve the completeness and quality of case reports in radiology.