The International Olympic Committee framework on fairness, inclusion and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations does not protect fairness for female athletes

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) recently published a framework on fairness, inclusion, and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations. Although we appreciate the IOC's recognition of the role of sports science and medicine in policy development, we disagree with the assertion that the IOC framework is consistent with existing scientific and medical evidence and question its recommendations for implementation. Testosterone exposure during male development results in physical differences between male and female bodies; this process underpins male athletic advantage in muscle mass, strength and power, and endurance and aerobic capacity. The IOC's “no presumption of advantage” principle disregards this reality. Studies show that transgender women (male-born individuals who identify as women) with suppressed testosterone retain muscle mass, strength, and other physical advantages compared to females; male performance advantage cannot be eliminated with testosterone suppression. The IOC's concept of “meaningful competition” is flawed because fairness of category does not hinge on closely matched performances. The female category ensures fair competition for female athletes by excluding male advantages. Case-by-case testing for transgender women may lead to stigmatization and cannot be robustly managed in practice. We argue that eligibility criteria for female competition must consider male development rather than relying on current testosterone levels. Female athletes should be recognized as the key stakeholders in the consultation and decision-making processes. We urge the IOC to reevaluate the recommendations of their Framework to include a comprehensive understanding of the biological advantages of male development to ensure fairness and safety in female sports

INVESTIGATE-I (INVasive Evaluation before Surgical Treatment of Incontinence Gives Added Therapeutic Effect?): study protocol for a mixed methods study to assess the feasibility of a future randomised controlled trial of the clinical utility of invasive urodynamic testing

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Urinary incontinence is an important health problem to the individual sufferer and to health services. Stress and stress predominant mixed urinary incontinence are increasingly managed by surgery due to advances in surgical techniques. Despite the lack of evidence for its clinical utility, most clinicians undertake invasive urodynamic testing (IUT) to confirm a functional diagnosis of urodynamic stress incontinence before offering surgery for this condition. IUT is expensive, embarrassing and uncomfortable for women and carries a small risk. Recent systematic reviews have confirmed the lack of high quality evidence of effectiveness.</p> <p>The aim of this pilot study is to test the feasibility of a future definitive randomised control trial that would address whether IUT alters treatment decisions and treatment outcome in these women and would test its clinical and cost effectiveness.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>This is a mixed methods pragmatic multicentre feasibility pilot study with four components:-</p> <p>(a) A multicentre, external pilot randomised trial comparing basic clinical assessment with non-invasive tests and IUT. The outcome measures are rates of recruitment, randomisation and data completion. Data will be used to estimate sample size necessary for the definitive trial.</p> <p>(b) Qualitative interviews of a purposively sampled sub-set of women eligible for the pilot trial will explore willingness to participate, be randomised and their overall trial experience.</p> <p>(c) A national survey of clinicians to determine their views of IUT in this context, the main outcome being their willingness to randomise patients into the definitive trial.</p> <p>(d) Qualitative interviews of a purposively sampled group of these clinicians will explore whether and how they use IUT to inform their decisions.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The pilot trial will provide evidence of feasibility and acceptability and therefore inform the decision whether to proceed to the definitive trial. Results will inform the design and conduct of the definitive trial and ensure its effectiveness in achieving its research aim.</p> <p>Trial registration number</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN71327395">ISRCTN71327395</a> assigned 7^thJune 2010.</p

Behavioural counselling in general practice about risk of CHD: non-attendance for follow up distorts results and shows that people don't like counselling - reply

Attempts to modify the risk of cardiovascular disease through individually based health education activities have proved disappointing. The report of the apparently successful trial of behavioural counselling seems to provide just what is needed to improve the efficacy of health promotion

Thigh-length compression stockings and DVT after stroke

Controversy exists as to whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with invasive bladder cancer, despite randomised controlled trials of more than 3000 patients. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of such treatment on survival in patients with this disease

A two-arm, randomised feasibility trial using link workers to improve dental visiting in people with severe mental illness: A protocol paper

Abstract Background People with severe mental illness (e.g. psychosis, bipolar disorder) experience poor oral health compared to the general population as shown by more decayed, missing and filled teeth and a higher prevalence of periodontal disease. Attending dental services allows treatment of oral health problems and support for prevention. However, people with severe mental illness face multiple barriers to attending routine dental appointments and often struggle to access care. Link work interventions use non-clinical support staff to afford vulnerable populations the capacity, opportunity, and motivation to navigate use of services. The authors have co-developed with service users a link work intervention for supporting people with severe mental illness to access routine dental appointments. The Mouth Matters in Mental Health Study aims to explore the feasibility and acceptability of this intervention within the context of a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) measuring outcomes related to the recruitment of participants, completion of assessments, and adherence to the intervention. The trial will closely monitor the safety of the intervention and trial procedures. Methods A feasibility RCT with 1:1 allocation to two arms: treatment as usual (control) or treatment as usual plus a link work intervention (treatment). The intervention consists of six sessions with a link worker over 9 months. Participants will be adults with severe mental illness receiving clinical input from secondary care mental health service and who have not attended a planned dental appointment in the past 3 years. Assessments will take place at baseline and after 9 months. The target recruitment total is 84 participants from across three NHS Trusts. A subset of participants and key stakeholders will complete qualitative interviews to explore the acceptability of the intervention and trial procedures. Discussion The link work intervention aims to improve dental access and reduce oral health inequalities in people with severe mental illness. There is a dearth of research relating to interventions that attempt to improve oral health outcomes in people with mental illness and the collected feasibility data will offer insights into this important area. Trial registration The trial was preregistered on ISRCTN (ISRCTN13650779) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05545228)