Is Endometriosis More Common and More Severe Than It Was 30 Years Ago?

ObjectiveCurrent estimates of endometriosis prevalence and incidence are highly variable, leading to uncertainty regarding true endometriosis frequency or validity of quantified changes over time. We present a comprehensive review of the prevalence, incidence, and stage of endometriosis worldwide as reported over the past 30 years.Data SourcesWe conducted a systematic search of observational studies using the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases to identify research papers published in English between January 1989 and June 2019. Search terminologies were limited to titles containing endometriosis and prevalence or incidence, or epidemiology, or frequency, or occurrence, or statistics.Methods of Study SelectionTwo independent reviewers screened abstracts for study eligibility, and data from included studies were abstracted.Tabulation, Integration, and ResultsOverall, 69 studies describing the prevalence and/or incidence of endometriosis met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 26 studies involved general population samples, 17 of which were from regional/national hospitals or insurance claims systems. The other 43 studies were conducted in single clinic or hospital settings. Prevalence estimates for endometriosis widely varied from 0.2% to 71.4% depending on the population sampled. The prevalence reported in general population studies ranged from 0.7% to 8.6%, whereas that reported in single clinic- or hospital-based studies ranged from 0.2% to 71.4%. When defined by indications for diagnosis, endometriosis prevalence ranged from 15.4% to 71.4% among women with chronic pelvic pain, 9.0% to 68.0% among women presenting with infertility, and 3.7% to 43.3% among women undergoing tubal sterilization. A meta-regression was conducted with year as the predictor of prevalence. No trend across time was observed among “general population in country/region” studies (β = 0.04, p = .12) or among “single hospital or clinic” studies (β = ˗0.02, p = .34); however, a decrease over time was observed among general population studies abstracted from health systems or insurance systems (β = −0.10, p = .005).ConclusionAs with all human studies, population sampling and study design matter. Heterogeneity of inclusion and diagnostic criteria and selection bias overwhelmingly account for variability in endometriosis prevalence estimated across the literature. Thus, it is difficult to conclude if the lack of observed change in frequency and distribution of endometriosis over the past 30 years is valid.     

Communication and protocol compliance and their relation to the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): A mixed-methods study of simulated telephone-assisted CPR

BackgroundIn the event of a cardiac arrest, emergency medical dispatchers (EMDs) play a critical role by providing telephone-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (T-CPR) to laypersons. The aim of our investigation was to describe compliance with the T-CPR protocol, the performance of the laypersons in a simulated T-CPR situation, and the communication between laypersons and EMDs during these actions.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study by analysing 20 recorded video and audio files. In a simulation, EMDs provided laypersons with instructions following T-CPR protocols. These were then analysed using a mixed method with convergent parallel design.ResultsIf the EMDs complied with the T-CPR protocol, the laypersons performed the correct procedures in 71% of the actions. The single most challenging instruction of the T-CPR protocol, for both EMDs and laypersons, was airway control. Mean values for compression depth and frequency did not reach established guideline goals for CPR.ConclusionProper application of T-CPR protocols by EMDs resulted in better performance by laypersons in CPR. The most problematic task for EMDs as well for laypersons was airway management. The study results did not establish that the quality of communication between EMDs and laypersons performing CPR in a cardiac arrest situation led to statistically different outcomes, as measured by the quality and effectiveness of the CPR delivered.     

Association of the time to first epinephrine administration and outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: SOS-KANTO 2012 study

Objective

This study assessed the association between the timing of first epinephrine administration (EA) and the neurological outcomes following out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) with both initial shockable and non-shockable rhythms.

The U.S.-FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged) List: Consensus Validation of a Clinical Tool to Improve Drug Therapy in Older Adults

Background/ObjectivesPolypharmacy and multimorbidity is a threat to older people; hence, listing approaches should support physicians to optimize medication. The FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged) classification of drug appropriateness for older people provides positive or negative labels: A (A-bsolutely), B (B-eneficial), C (C-areful), and D (D-on't). Based on these categories, FORTA-labeled drug lists were developed in 7 European countries or regions; the same approach was used to develop a U.S.-FORTA List reflecting the country-specific availability and usage of drugs.Design/SettingA 2-step Delphi-type approach was employed to add, remove, or relabel drugs from the listing proposal and to add or remove new indications. The proposal utilized the European (EURO)-FORTA list as template.ParticipantsEight US-based geriatricians/pharmacists served as raters. Measurements: Raters gave recommendations and comments on the list items.ResultsThe first U.S.-FORTA List contains 273 items aligned to 27 main indication groups; 30 drugs and drug groups were added, and 23 removed as being unavailable in the United States. The highest percentage of changes in FORTA labels as compared to the EURO-FORTA List occurred for sleep disorders associated with dementia (40%). In 8 indications, the labels for 11 items were different from the proposal. Thus, for the majority of the items (n = 232, 95.5%), the proposals were accepted by the US raters. Only 16 (6.6%) of the proposed items (n = 243) had to be re-evaluated in the second round as a result of inconsistent rating in the first round.Conclusions and ImplicationsThe U.S.-FORTA List addresses the appropriateness of drugs for older people in the United States reflecting country-specific availability, usage, and expert rating. As shown for the FORTA list in Europe, this listing approach is among the few that are clinically validated and improve well-being and geriatric outcomes. The U.S.-FORTA List now largely enhances the global availability of this approach.