What is the best way to diagnose menopause?

No single test for menopause is highly sensitive and specific. The best predictors that a woman will enter menopause within 4 years include age at least 50 years, amenorrhea for 3 to 11 months, and menstrual cycle irregularity within 12 months (strength of recommendation [SOR]: B; based on multiple prospective cohort studies). For diagnosing perimenopause, the level of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) is most useful for clinical situations in which the pretest probability, as based on history, is midrange (SOR: B, based on 1 systematic review and 2 cross-sectional studies)

Primary Care Screening and Treatment for Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Adults: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Five to ten percent of individuals with latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) progress to active tuberculosis (TB) disease. Identifying and treating LTBI is a key component of the strategy for reducing the burden of TB disease. To review the evidence about targeted screening and treatment for LTBI among adults in primary care settings to support the US Preventive Services Task Force in updating its 1996 recommendation. MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries, searched through August 3, 2015; references from pertinent articles; and experts. Literature surveillance was conducted through May 31, 2016. English-language studies of LTBI screening, LTBI treatment with recommended pharmacotherapy, or accuracy of the tuberculin skin test (TST) or interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs). Studies of individuals for whom LTBI screening and treatment is part of public health surveillance or disease management were excluded. Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles. When at least 3 similar studies were available, random-effects meta-analysis was used to generate pooled estimates of outcomes. Sensitivity, specificity, reliability, active TB disease, mortality, hepatotoxicity, and other harms. The review included 72 studies (n = 51 711). No studies evaluated benefits and harms of screening compared with no screening. Pooled estimates for sensitivity of the TST at both 5-mm and 10-mm induration thresholds were 0.79 (5-mm: 95% CI, 0.69-0.89 [8 studies, n = 803]; 10 mm: 95% CI, 0.71-0.87 [11 studies; n = 988]), and those for IGRAs ranged from 0.77 to 0.90 (57 studies; n = 4378). Pooled estimates for specificity of the TST at the 10-mm and 15-mm thresholds and for IGRAs ranged from 0.95 to 0.99 (34 studies; n = 23 853). A randomized clinical trial (RCT) of 24 weeks of isoniazid in individuals with pulmonary fibrotic lesions and LTBI (n = 27 830) found a reduction in absolute risk of active TB at 5 years from 1.4% to 0.5% (relative risk [RR], 0.35 [95% CI, 0.24-0.52]) and an increase in absolute risk for hepatoxicity from 0.1% to 0.5% (RR, 4.59 [95% CI, 2.03-10.39]) for 24 weeks of daily isoniazid compared with placebo. An RCT (n = 6886) found that 3 months of once-weekly rifapentine plus isoniazid was noninferior to 9 months of isoniazid alone for preventing active TB. The risk difference for hepatoxicity comparing isoniazid with rifampin ranged from 3% to 7%, with a pooled RR of 3.29 (95% CI, 1.72-6.28 [3 RCTs; n = 1327]). No studies evaluated the benefits and harms of screening compared with no screening. Both the TST and IGRAs are moderately sensitive and highly specific within countries with low TB burden. Treatment reduced the risk of active TB among the populations included in this review. Isoniazid is associated with higher rates of hepatotoxicity than placebo or rifampin

Training Veterans to Provide Peer Support in a Weight-Management Program: MOVE!

IntroductionThe Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has implemented MOVE!, a weight-management program for veterans designed to address the increasing proportion of overweight and obese veterans. The objective of our study was to determine whether peer support employing motivational interviewing (MI) could positively influence lifestyle changes, thus expanding the reach of the MOVE! program. We describe the initial evaluation of the peer training program.MethodsWe developed an MI peer counselor training program for volunteer veterans, the “Buddies” program, to provide one-on-one telephone support for veterans enrolled in MOVE!. Buddies were recruited at 5 VHA sites and trained to provide peer support for the 6-month MOVE! intervention. We used a DVD to teach MI skills and followed with 2 to 3 booster sessions. We observed training, conducted pre- and posttraining surveys, and debriefed focus groups to assess training feasibility.ResultsFifty-six Buddies were trained. Results indicate positive receipt of the program (89% reported learning about peer counseling and 87% reported learning communication skills). Buddies showed a small improvement in MI self-efficacy on posttraining surveys. We also identified key challenges to learning MI and training implementation.ConclusionsMI training is feasible to implement and acceptable to volunteer Buddies. Trainers must assess how effectively volunteers learn MI skills in order to enhance its effective use in health promotion

Medication Therapy Management Interventions in Outpatient Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE: Medication therapy management (MTM) services (also called clinical pharmacy services) aim to reduce medication-related problems and their downstream outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of MTM interventions among outpatients with chronic illnesses. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts through January 9, 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers selected studies with comparators and eligible outcomes of ambulatory adults. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Dual review of titles, abstracts, full-text, extractions, risk of bias, and strength of evidence grading. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Medication-related problems, morbidity, mortality, quality of life, health care use, costs, and harms. RESULTS: Forty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of MTM interventions on most evaluated outcomes (eg, drug therapy problems, adverse drug events, disease-specific morbidity, disease-specific or all-cause mortality, and harms). The interventions improved a few measures of medication-related problems and health care use and costs (low strength of evidence) when compared with usual care. Specifically, MTM interventions improved medication appropriateness (4.9 vs 0.9 points on the medication appropriateness index, P < .001), adherence (approximately 4.6%), and percentage of patients achieving a threshold adherence level (odds ratios [ORs] ranged from 0.99 to 5.98) and reduced medication dosing (mean difference, -2.2 doses; 95% CI, -3.738 to -0.662). Medication therapy management interventions reduced health plan expenditures on medication costs, although the studies reported wide CIs. For patients with diabetes mellitus or heart failure, MTM interventions lowered the odds of hospitalization (diabetes: OR, 0.91 to 0.93 based on type of insurance; adjusted hazard rate for heart failure: 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.77) and hospitalization costs (mean differences ranged from -$363.45 to -$398.98). The interventions conferred no benefit for patient satisfaction and most measures of health-related quality of life (low strength). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We graded the evidence as insufficient for most outcomes because of inconsistency and imprecision that stem in part from underlying heterogeneity in populations and interventions. Medication therapy management interventions may reduce the frequency of some medication-related problems, including nonadherence, and lower some health care use and costs, but the evidence is insufficient with respect to improvement in health outcomes

Demand for Weight Loss Counseling After Copayment Elimination

IntroductionOverweight and obesity are public health issues in the United States, and veterans have a higher rate of overweight and obesity than the general population. Our objective was to examine whether copayment elimination increased use of a weight loss clinic by veterans.MethodsWe examined clinic use by 44,411 new patients seen in a Veterans Affairs (VA) MOVE! weight management clinic before the copayment elimination and clinic use by 64,398 new patients seen in the year after copayment elimination. We examined clinic use via mixed-effects models for patients who were already exempt from copayment and patients who were newly exempt from copayment. We used 2 outcomes before and after copayment elimination: 1) the ratio of number of clinic visits by new users with the mean number of MOVE! clinic visits by all users, and 2) the number of clinic visits by each new user in the 6 months after their first visit. All models were adjusted for patient and clinic factors.ResultsAmong newly exempt patients, the clinic-standardized rate of new use increased by 2.2% after the copayment was eliminated but increased 12% among already exempt veterans. This finding was confirmed in adjusted analyses. Analysis of number of clinic visits adjusted for patient and clinic factors also found that exempt and nonexempt veterans had similar numbers of repeat clinic visits.ConclusionWe saw an unexpected larger increase in demand among veterans who receive all VA care for free. These results suggest that VA should not assume that copayment reductions for selective preventive services will motivate patient change and achieve intended system-level outcomes

AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 5: advanced analytic methods.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Advanced analytic methods for synthesizing evidence about complex interventions continue to be developed. In this paper, we emphasize that the specific research question posed in the review should be used as a guide for choosing the appropriate analytic method. METHODS: We present advanced analytic approaches that address four common questions that guide reviews of complex interventions: (1) How effective is the intervention? (2) For whom does the intervention work and in what contexts? (3) What happens when the intervention is implemented? and (4) What decisions are possible given the results of the synthesis? CONCLUSION: The analytic approaches presented in this paper are particularly useful when each primary study differs in components, mechanisms of action, context, implementation, timing, and many other domains

Quality improvement, implementation, and dissemination strategies to improve mental health care for children and adolescents: a systematic review

Abstract Background Some outcomes for children with mental health problems remain suboptimal because of poor access to care and the failure of systems and providers to adopt established quality improvement strategies and interventions with proven effectiveness. This review had three goals: (1) assess the effectiveness of quality improvement, implementation, and dissemination strategies intended to improve the mental health care of children and adolescents; (2) examine harms associated with these strategies; and (3) determine whether effectiveness or harms differ for subgroups based on system, organizational, practitioner, or patient characteristics. Methods Sources included MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, from database inception through February 17, 2017. Additional sources included gray literature, additional studies from reference lists, and technical experts. Two reviewers selected relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Dual analysis, synthesis, and grading of the strength of evidence for each outcome followed for studies meeting inclusion criteria. We also used qualitative comparative analysis to examine relationships between combinations of strategy components and improvements in outcomes. Results We identified 18 strategies described in 19 studies. Eleven strategies significantly improved at least one measure of intermediate outcomes, final health outcomes, or resource use. Moderate strength of evidence (from one RCT) supported using provider financial incentives such as pay for performance to improve the competence with which practitioners can implement evidence-based practices (EBPs). We found inconsistent evidence involving strategies with educational meetings, materials, and outreach; programs appeared to be successful in combination with reminders or providing practitioners with newly collected clinical information. We also found low strength of evidence for no benefit for initiatives that included only educational materials or meetings (or both), or only educational materials and outreach components. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions on harms and moderators of interventions. Conclusions Several strategies can improve both intermediate and final health outcomes and resource use. This complex and heterogeneous body of evidence does not permit us to have a high degree of confidence about the efficacy of any one strategy because we generally found only a single study testing each strategy. Trial registration PROSPERO, CRD42015024759

Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion for chronic sacroiliac joint pain: A systematic review

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain causes significant disability and impairment to quality of life (QOL). Minimally invasive SI joint fusion is increasingly used to relieve chronic SI joint pain among patients who do not respond to nonsurgical treatment. PURPOSE: To systematically review the existing literature to assess the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive SI joint fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and a clinical trial registry from database inception to June 30, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies were primary research studies published in the English language, enrolled adults with SI joint pain, and compared SI joint fusion to nonsurgical interventions or alternative minimally invasive procedures. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled cohort studies (CCSs) that reported effectiveness (pain, physical function, QOL, opioid use) or safety outcomes (adverse events [AEs], revision surgeries) and uncontrolled studies that reported safety outcomes. DATA ABSTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were abstracted into structured forms; two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias using standard instruments; certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE. RESULTS: Forty studies (2 RCTs, 3 CCSs, and 35 uncontrolled studies) were included. Minimally invasive SI joint fusion with the iFuse Implant System appeared to result in larger improvements in pain (two RCTs: mean difference in visual analog scale -40.5 mm, 95% CI, -50.1 to -30.9; -38.1 mm, p\u3c.0001) and larger improvements in physical function (mean difference in Oswestry Disability Index -25.4 points, 95% CI, -32.5 to -18.3; -19.8 points, p\u3c.0001) compared to conservative management at 6 months. Improvements in pain and physical function for the RCTs appeared durable at 1- and 2-year follow-up. Findings were similar in one CCS. The two RCTs also found significant improvements in QOL at 6 months and 1 year. Opioid use may be improved at 6 months and 1 to 2 years. AEs appeared higher in the fusion group at 6 months. The incidence of revision surgery varied by study; the highest was 3.8% at 2 years. Two CCSs compared the effectiveness of alternative minimally invasive fusion procedures. One CCS compared iFuse to the Rialto SI Fusion System and reported no differences in pain, function, QOL, and revision surgeries from 6 months to 1 year. One CCS compared iFuse to percutaneous screw fixation and reported significantly fewer revisions among iFuse participants (mean difference -61.0%, 95% CI, -78.4% to -43.5%). The 35 uncontrolled studies had serious limitations and reported heterogeneous safety outcomes. Two of the larger studies reported a 13.2% incidence of complications from minimally invasive SI joint fusion at 90 days using an insurance claims database and a 3.1% incidence of revision surgery over 2.5 years using a postmarket surveillance database. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients meeting diagnostic criteria for SI joint pain and who have not responded to conservative care, minimally invasive SI joint fusion is probably more effective than conservative management for reducing pain and opioid use and improving physical function and QOL. Fusion with iFuse and Rialto appear to have similar effectiveness. AEs appear to be higher for minimally invasive SI joint fusion than conservative management through 6 months. Based on evidence from uncontrolled studies, serious AEs from minimally invasive SI joint fusion may be higher in usual practice compared to what is reported in trials. The incidence of revision surgery is likely no higher than 3.8% at 2 years. Limited evidence is available that compares different minimally invasive devices