On deciding to have a lobotomy:either lobotomies were justified or decisions under risk should not always seek to maximise expected utility

In the 1940s and 1950s thousands of lobotomies were performed on people with mental disorders. These operations were known to be dangerous, but thought to offer great hope. Nowadays, the lobotomies of the 1940s and 1950s are widely condemned. The consensus is that the practitioners who employed them were, at best, misguided enthusiasts, or, at worst, evil. In this paper I employ standard decision theory to understand and assess shifts in the evaluation of lobotomy. Textbooks of medical decision making generally recommend that decisions under risk are made so as to maximise expected utility (MEU) I show that using this procedure suggests that the 1940s and 1950s practice of psychosurgery was justifiable. In making sense of this finding we have a choice: Either we can accept that psychosurgery was justified, in which case condemnation of the lobotomists is misplaced. Or, we can conclude that the use of formal decision procedures, such as MEU, is problematic

A qualitative study of cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS Health Check using different risk calculators: protocol for the RIsk COmmunication in NHS Health Check (RICO) study. BMC family practice, 20(1), 11.

Background NHS Health Check is a national cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment programme for 40–74 year olds in England, in which practitioners should assess and communicate CVD risk, supported by appropriate risk-management advice and goal-setting. This requires effective communication, to equip patients with knowledge and intention to act. Currently, the QRISK®2 10-year CVD risk score is most common way in which CVD risk is estimated. Newer tools, such as JBS3, allow manipulation of risk factors and can demonstrate the impact of positive actions. However, the use, and relative value, of these tools within CVD risk communication is unknown. We will explore practitioner and patient CVD risk perceptions when using QRISK®2 or JBS3, the associated advice or treatment offered by the practitioner, and patients’ responses. Methods RIsk COmmunication in NHS Health Check (RICO) is a qualitative study with quantitative process evaluation. Twelve general practices in the West Midlands of England will be randomised to one of two groups: usual practice, in which practitioners use QRISK®2 to assess and communicate CVD risk; intervention, in which practitioners use JBS3. Twenty Health Checks per practice will be video-recorded (n = 240, 120 per group), with patients stratified by age, gender and ethnicity. Post-Health Check, video-stimulated recall (VSR) interviews will be conducted with 48 patients (n = 24 per group) and all practitioners (n = 12–18), using video excerpts to enhance participant recall/reflection. Patient medical record reviews will detect health-protective actions in the first 12-weeks following a Health Check (e.g., lifestyle referrals, statin prescription). Risk communication, patient response and intentions for health-protective behaviours in each group will be explored through thematic analysis of video-recorded Health Checks (using Protection Motivation Theory as a framework) and VSR interviews. Process evaluation will include between-group comparisons of quantitatively coded Health Check content and post-Health Check patient outcomes. Finally, 10 patients with the most positive intentions or behaviours will be selected for case study analysis (using all data sources). Discussion This study will produce novel insights about the utility of QRISK®2 and JBS3 to promote patient and practitioner understanding and perception of CVD risk and associated implications for patient intentions with respect to health-protective behaviours (and underlying mechanisms). Recommendations for practice will be developed

Does the routine use of global coronary heart disease risk scores translate into clinical benefits or harms? A systematic review of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Guidelines now recommend routine assessment of global coronary heart disease (CHD) risk scores. We performed a systematic review to assess whether global CHD risk scores result in clinical benefits or harms.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched MEDLINE (1966 through June 13, 2007) for articles relevant to our review. Using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included studies of any design that provided physicians with global risk scores or allowed them to calculate scores themselves, and then measured clinical benefits and/or harms. Two reviewers reviewed potentially relevant studies for inclusion and resolved disagreement by consensus. Data from each article was then abstracted into an evidence table by one reviewer and the quality of evidence was assessed independently by two reviewers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>11 studies met criteria for inclusion in our review. Six studies addressed clinical benefits and 5 addressed clinical harms. Six studies were rated as "fair" quality and the others were deemed "methodologically limited". Two fair quality studies showed that physician knowledge of global CHD risk is associated with increased prescription of cardiovascular drugs in high risk (but not all) patients. Two additional fair quality studies showed no effect on their primary outcomes, but one was underpowered and the other focused on prescribing of lifestyle changes, rather than drugs whose prescribing might be expected to be targeted by risk level. One of these aforementioned studies showed improved blood pressure in high-risk patients, but no improvement in the proportion of patients at high risk, perhaps due to the high proportion of participants with baseline risks significantly exceeding the risk threshold. Two fair quality studies found no evidence of harm from patient knowledge of global risk scores when they were accompanied by counseling, and optional or scheduled follow-up. Other studies were too methodologically limited to draw conclusions.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our review provides preliminary evidence that physicians' knowledge of global CHD risk scores may translate into modestly increased prescribing of cardiovascular drugs and modest short-term reductions in CHD risk factors without clinical harm. Whether these results are replicable, and translate across other practice settings or into improved long-term CHD outcomes remains to be seen.</p

"One for Sorrow, Two for Joy?": American embryo transfer guideline recommendations, practices and outcomes for gestational surrogate patients

In January 2016, Melissa Cook, a California gestational surrogate experiencing a multiple birth pregnancy following the in vitro fertilization (IVF) transfer of three embryos comprised of donor eggs and sperm provided by the intended father went to the media when the intended father requested that she undergo a fetal reduction because twins were less expensive to raise than triplets. Much of the legal interest in this case to date has centered on the enforceability of surrogacy contracts. However, the Cook case also raises troubling issues about fertility treatment practices involving gestational surrogates, twin preference, and third-party reproduction medical decision-making. This paper focuses on multipleembryo transfers in the context of U.S. surrogacy arrangements. Offering an original analysis of data obtained from the U.S. national assisted reproduction registry, it examines single- and multiple-embryo transfer trends over an eleven-year period (2003 to 2014). Findings reveal that recommended guidelines were followed in less than 42% of cases in 2014. The paper argues that ensuring equitable medical treatment for all recipients of IVF requires the adoption of treatment guidelines tailored to, and offering protections for, specific patient groups, and that, once in place, guidelines must be robustly implemente

Changes in Crestal Bone Around Endosseous Implants During Functional Loading: A Radiographic Evaluation in Edentulous Patients Comparing Different Implant Designs

Marginal bone changes around titanium plasma-sprayed implants (n = 240) placed in the mandibular interforaminal regions of 120 edentulous patients were assessed over 5 years of follow-up, with emphasis on the influence of the locations of the microgap and rough/smooth border. Marginal bone changes were measured on standardized radiographs. Locations of the microgap and the rough/smooth border were both shown not to be major contributing factors in determining the marginal bone level around implants. (Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2012;32;677-686.

Maxillary anterior and mandibular posterior residual ridge resorption in patients wearing a mandibular implant - retained overdenture

P>The mandibular implant-retained overdenture could improve masticatory function compared to the conventional complete denture. However, increased forces exerted by the overdenture could increase residual ridge resorption of the maxillary anterior and mandibular posterior areas. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of the mandibular implant-retained overdenture using two or four dental implants, or the conventional complete denture on resorption of the residual ridge of the maxillary anterior and mandibular posterior areas over a period of 10 years. In total, 120 patients, 30 patients treated with an overdenture on two implants (two-implant group), 30 patients with an overdenture on four implants (four-implant group) and 60 patients treated with a conventional full denture (conventional group), participated in this study. On panoramic radiographs, made before and 10 years after treatment, proportional area measurements were applied to determine changes in bone height. After 10 years, a statistically significant amount of bone resorption had occurred in the anterior maxilla in the two-implant group and in the four-implant group. A significant amount of bone resorption had occurred in the posterior mandible in all three groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in both areas. Patients presented large individual differences. It is concluded that patients rehabilitated with implant-retained mandibular overdentures are not subjected to more residual ridge resorption in the anterior maxilla when compared to patients wearing a conventional full denture. Regarding the mandibular posterior residual ridge, resorption was irrespective of wearing an implant-retained mandibular overdenture or a conventional mandibular denture

How to treat two adjacent missing teeth with dental implants. A systematic review on single implant-supported two-unit cantilever FDP's and results of a 5-year prospective comparative study in the aesthetic zone

To conduct a systematic review on the clinical outcome of single implant-supported two-unit cantilever FDP's and to conduct a 5-year prospective comparative pilot study of patients with a missing central and lateral upper incisor treated with either a single implant-supported two-unit cantilever FDP or two implants with solitary implant crowns in the aesthetic zone. Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched (last search 1 August 2016) for eligible studies. In the comparative pilot study, an implant-cantilever group of five patients with a single implant-supported two-unit cantilever FDP (NobelReplace Groovy Regular Platform) was compared with an implant-implant group of five patients with two adjacent single implant-supported crowns (NobelReplace Groovy Regular Platform) in the aesthetic zone. Implant survival, marginal bone level (MBL) changes, pocket probing depth, papilla index and patient satisfaction were assessed during a 5-year follow-up period. Five of 276 articles were considered eligible for data extraction. Implant survival ranged from 966% to 100%. Marginal bone level changes were higher in the anterior region than in the posterior region. Technical complications occurred more often in the posterior than anterior region. In the 5-year comparative pilot study, no clinically significant differences in hard and soft peri-implant tissue levels occurred between both groups. Single implant-supported two-unit cantilever FDP's can be a viable alternative to the placement of two adjacent single implant crowns in the aesthetic zone. Due to technical complications, placement of two-unit cantilever crowns in the posterior region can be considered unwise