Current Knowledge on Factor V Leiden Mutation as a Risk Factor for Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background Thrombophilia screening is widely done in clinical practice, and it is claimed that the extent of venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence risk in patients with common defects is still not fully understood. Aim We aimed to summarize data of all observational studies prospectively assessing the association of heterozygous factor V Leiden (FVL) mutation and recurrent VTE in patients with VTE, and to calculate pooled relative risks (RR), overall and in various subgroups. Methods We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for cohort studies prospectively assessing VTE recurrence in patients with and without FVL mutation (PROSPERO: CRD42021182800). Data were extracted on cohort and study-level. The methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RR were calculated overall and in subgroups using a random-effects model. Results From 31 cohorts, 24 studies were finally included summarizing 13,571 patients. Heterozygous FVL mutation was identified in 2,840 individuals (21%). The methodological quality was estimated to be high in 20 studies (83%). The overall RR was 1.46 (95% CI: 1.31, 1.64), consistent across subgroups. Conclusions Pooling all high-quality epidemiological data, the risk of recurrent VTE was increased by 46% in patients with heterozygous FVL mutation. Against the background of established risk factors, the FVL mutation plays only a marginal role in the risk assessment for recurrent VTE

A tool to assess the quality of a meta-analysis

Background: Because meta-analyses are increasingly prevalent and cited in the medical literature, it is important that tools are available to assess their methodological quality. When performing an empirical study of the quality of published meta-analyses, we found that existing tools did not place a strong emphasis on statistical and interpretational issues. Methods: We developed a quality-assessment tool using existing materials and expert judgment as a starting point, followed by multiple iterations of input from our working group, piloting, and discussion. After having used the tool for our empirical study, agreement for four key items in the tool was measured using weighted kappa coefficients. Results: Our tool contained 43 items divided into four key areas (data sources, analysis of individual studies, meta-analysis methods, and interpretation), and each area ended with a summary question. We also produced guidance for completing the tool. Agreement between raters was fair to moderate. Conclusions: The tool should usefully inform subsequent initiatives to develop quality-assessment tools for meta-analysis. We advocate use of consensus between independent raters when assessing statistical appropriateness and adequacy of interpretation in meta-analyses

A BEME systematic review of UK undergraduate medical education in the general practice setting

<div><p></p><p><b>Background</b>: General practice is increasingly used as a learning environment in undergraduate medical education in the UK.</p><p><b>Aim</b>: The aim of this project was to identify, summarise and synthesise research about undergraduate medical education in general practice in the UK.</p><p><b>Methods</b>: We systematically identified studies of undergraduate medical education within a general practice setting in the UK from 1990 onwards. All papers were summarised in a descriptive report and categorised into two in-depth syntheses: a quantitative and a qualitative in-depth review.</p><p><b>Results</b>: 169 papers were identified, representing research from 26 UK medical schools. The in-depth review of quantitative papers (<i>n</i> = 7) showed that medical students learned clinical skills as well or better in general practice settings. Students receive more teaching, and clerk and examine more patients in the general practice setting than in hospital. Patient satisfaction and enablement are similar whether a student is present or not in a consultation, however, patients experience lower relational empathy. Two main thematic groups emerged from the qualitative in-depth review (<i>n</i> = 10): the interpersonal interactions within the teaching consultation and the socio-cultural spaces of learning which shape these interactions. The GP has a role as a broker of the interactions between patients and students. General practice is a socio-cultural and developmental learning space for students, who need to negotiate the competing cultures between hospital and general practice. Lastly, patients are transient members of the learning community, and their role requires careful facilitation.</p><p><b>Conclusions</b>: General practice is as good, if not better, than hospital delivery of teaching of clinical skills. Our meta-ethnography has produced rich understandings of the complex relationships shaping possibilities for student and patient active participation in learning.</p></div