Values clarification in a decision aid about fertility preservation: does it add to information provision?

Background We aimed to evaluate the effect of a decision aid (DA) with information only compared to a DA with values clarification exercise (VCE), and to study the role of personality and information seeking style in DA-use, decisional conflict (DC) and knowledge. Methods Two scenario-based experiments were conducted with two different groups of healthy female participants. Dependent measures were: DC, knowledge, and DA-use (time spent, pages viewed, VCE used). Respondents were randomized between a DA with information only (VCE-) and a DA with information plus a VCE(VCE+) (experiment 1), or between information only (VCE-), information plus VCE without referral to VCE(VCE+), and information plus a VCE with specific referral to the VCE, requesting participants to use the VCE(VCE++) (experiment 2). In experiment 2 we additionally measured personality (neuroticism/conscientiousness) and information seeking style (monitoring/blunting). Results Experiment 1. There were no differences in DC, knowledge or DA-use between VCE- (n=70) and VCE+ (n=70). Both DAs lead to a mean gain in knowledge from 39% at baseline to 73% after viewing the DA. Within VCE+, VCE-users (n=32, 46%) reported less DC compared to non-users. Since there was no difference in DC between VCE- and VCE+, this is likely an effect of VCE-use in a self-selected group, and not of the VCE per se. Experiment 2. There were no differences in DC or knowledge between VCE- (n=65), VCE+ (n=66), VCE++ (n=66). In all groups, knowledge increased on average from 42% at baseline to 72% after viewing the DA. Blunters viewed fewer DA-pages (R=0.38, p<.001). More neurotic women were less certain (R=0.18, p<.01) and felt less supported in decision making (R=0.15, p<.05); conscientious women felt more certain (R=-0.15, p<.05) and had more knowledge after viewing the DA (R=0.15, p<.05). Conclusions Both DAs lead to increased knowledge in healthy populations making hypothetical decisions, and use of the VCE did not improve knowledge or DC. Personality characteristics were associated to some extent with DA-use, information seeking styles with aspects of DC. More research is needed to make clear recommendations regarding the need for tailoring of information provision to personality characteristics, and to assess the effect of VCE use in actual patients

Systematic review of methods used in meta-analyses where a primary outcome is an adverse or unintended event

addresses: Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, St Luke's Campus, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. [email protected]: PMCID: PMC3528446types: Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't© 2012 Warren et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Adverse consequences of medical interventions are a source of concern, but clinical trials may lack power to detect elevated rates of such events, while observational studies have inherent limitations. Meta-analysis allows the combination of individual studies, which can increase power and provide stronger evidence relating to adverse events. However, meta-analysis of adverse events has associated methodological challenges. The aim of this study was to systematically identify and review the methodology used in meta-analyses where a primary outcome is an adverse or unintended event, following a therapeutic intervention

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Overview of randomized trials of intravenous heparin in patients with acute acute myocardial infarction treated with thrombolytic therapy

Intravenous heparin is routinely given after thrombolytic therapy for patients with acute myocardial infarction in the United States and in some, but by no means all, other countries. Several trials have documented improved infarct-artery patency in patients treated with heparin; however, none was forge enough individually to assess the effect of heparin on clinical outcomes. We performed ct systematic overview of the 6 randomized controlled trials (1,735 patients) to summarize the available data concerning the risks and benefits of intravenous heparin versus no heparin after thrombolytic therapy. Mortality before hospital discharge was 5.1% for patients allocated to intravenous heparin compared with 5.6% for controls (relative risk reduction of 9%, odds ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.39). Similar rates of recurrent ischemia and reinfarction were observed among those allocated to heparin therapy or control. The rates of total stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and severe bleeding were similar in patients allocated to heparin; however, the risk of any severity of bleeding was significantly higher (22.7% vs 16.2%; odds ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.98), There was no significant difference in the observed effects of heparin between patients receiving tissue-type plasminogen activator and those receiving streptokinase or anisoylated plasminogen streptokinase activator complex, or between patients who did and did not receive aspirin. The findings of this overview demonstrate that insufficient clinical outcome data are available to support or to refute the routine use of intravenous heparin therapy after thrombolysis. It is not known if these findings are due to lack of statistical power, inappropriate levels of anticoagulation, or lack of benefit of intravenous heparin. Large randomized studies of heparin (and of newer antithrombotic regimens) are needed to establish the role of such therapy