A population based case control study of aetiological factors associated with vulval lichen sclerosus

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

National guidelines for management of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesion : A survey of European Federation for Colposcopy members

Acknowledgements: Austria: Olaf Reich: Belgium: Wiebrin Tjalma; Croatia: Drazan Butorac; Cyprus: Dinos Mavromoustakis; Estonia: Terje Raud, Liis Kriisa; Finland: Maija Jakobsson;bFrance: Xavier Carcopino; Georgia: Tamar Alibegashvili; Germany: Jens Quaas Volkmar Kuppers, Greece: Georgios Michail; Hungary: Robert Koiss; Iceland: Kristjan Oddsson; Ireland: Grainne Flannelly; Israel: Efraim Siegler; Italy: Andrea Ciavattini; Kosovo: Mazllom Smajli; Latvia: Kristine Pcolkina; Lithuania: Kristina Jariene; Macedonia: Goran Dimitrov; Moldova: Uliana Tabuica; Norway: Amelie Tropé; Poland: Robert Jach; Portugal: Amélia Pedro; Romania: Mihaela Grigore Russia: Vera Prilepskaya; Serbia: Vesna Kesic; Slovenia: Spela Smrkolj ; Spain: Marta del Pino; Sweden: Björn Strander; Switzerland: André Kind, Brigitte Frey Tirri; The Netherlands: A.M.L.D. van Haaften-de Jong; Turkey: Murat Gultekin; U.K.: Pierre Martin-Hirsch; Ukraine: Nataliya VolodkoPeer reviewedPostprin

Disease severity scoring systems in mucosal lichen planus : a systematic review

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SPU is supported by the University of Aberdeen Elphinstone Scholarship Scheme.Peer reviewedPostprin

Biopsy and selective recall compared with immediate large loop excision in management of women with low grade abnormal cervical cytology referred for colposcopy : multicentre randomised controlled trial

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Defining the genetic susceptibility to cervical neoplasia - a genome-wide association study

Funding: MAB was funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) Senior Principal Research Fellowship. Support was also received from the Australian Cancer Research Foundation. JL holds a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Human Genome Epidemiology. The Seattle study was supported by the following grants: NIH, National Cancer Institute grants P01CA042792 and R01CA112512. Cervical Health Study (from which the NSW component was obtained) was funded by NHMRC Grant 387701, and CCNSW core grant. The Montreal study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant MOP-42532) and sample processing was funded by the Reseau FRQS SIDA-MI. The Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research, the ALF/LUA research grant in Gothenburg and Umeå, the Lundberg Foundation, the Torsten and Ragnar Soderberg’s Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, and the European Commission grant HEALTH-F2-2008-201865-GEFOS, BBMRI.se, the Swedish Society of Medicine, the KempeFoundation (JCK-1021), the Medical Faculty of Umeå University, the County Council of Vasterbotten (Spjutspetsanslag VLL:159:33-2007). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscriptPeer reviewedPublisher PDFPublisher PD

The European response to the WHO call to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem

The age-standardised incidence of cervical cancer in Europe varies widely by country (between 3 and 25/100000 women-years) in 2018. Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine coverage is low in countries with the highest incidence and screening performance is heterogeneous among European countries. A broad group of delegates of scientific professional societies and cancer organisations endorse the principles of the WHO call to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem, also in Europe. All European nations should, by 2030, reach at least 90% HPV vaccine coverage among girls by the age of 15 years and also boys, if cost-effective; they should introduce organised population-based HPV-based screening and achieve 70% of screening coverage in the target age group, providing also HPV testing on self-samples for nonscreened or underscreened women; and to manage 90% of screen-positive women. To guide member states, a group of scientific professional societies and cancer organisations engage to assist in the rollout of a series of concerted evidence-based actions. European health authorities are requested to mandate a group of experts to develop the third edition of European Guidelines for Quality Assurance of Cervical Cancer prevention based on integrated HPV vaccination and screening and to monitor the progress towards the elimination goal. The occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic, having interrupted prevention activities temporarily, should not deviate stakeholders from this ambition. In the immediate postepidemic phase, health professionals should focus on high-risk women and adhere to cost-effective policies including self-sampling.Peer reviewe

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD), the European College for the Study of Vulval Disease (ECSVD), and the European Federation for Colposcopy (EFC) Consensus Statement on the Management of Vaginal Intraepithelial Neoplasia

Copyright © 2023 ESGO, ISSVD, EFC, ECSVD. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the ASCCP.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD), the European College for the Study of Vulval Disease (ECSVD), and the European Federation for Colposcopy (EFC) consensus statement on the management of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia

© ESGO, ISSVD, EFC, ECSVD 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Evaluation of a COVID ‐19 fundamental nursing care guideline versus usual care: The COVID‐NURSE cluster randomized controlled trial

Aim: To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID‐19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses' moral distress, patient health‐related quality of life and cost‐effectiveness. Design: Parallel two‐arm, cluster‐level randomized controlled trial. Methods: Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID‐19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient‐reported co‐primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention‐to‐treat analyses. Results: We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570–572 (98.1%–98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between‐group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between‐group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co‐primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the ‘other’ ethnicity subgroup. Conclusion: We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non‐white British patients' experience of care. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required. Impact: Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non‐white British patients' experience of care. Reporting Method: CONSORT and CONSERVE. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID‐19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings

Obstetrics and Gynaecology

xi.200 hal.;24 c