Prevalence of high waist circumference (WC) using new and standard cut-offs in English adults aged 70–89 years during 1993–2010.

<p>Prevalence of high waist circumference (WC) using new and standard cut-offs in English adults aged 70–89 years during 1993–2010.</p

Quantile regression coefficients of waist circumference distribution(cm) predicted from survey year, age group and educational group.

1<p>Hypothesis of equal coefficients for a variable in the regression equations for the 15%, 50% and 85% percentiles.</p>2<p>Compared to age 80–89.</p>3<p>Compared to left education ≥16 years.</p>4<p>Corresponds to predicted percentile for year = 1993, age-group = 70–79 & left education ≥16 years.</p

Binomial regression parameters in the four models of prevalence (%) of abdominal obesity in English men and women aged 70–89.

1<p>Standard cut-off Abdominal Obesity - WC >102 cm (men) and >88 cm (women).</p>2<p>New cut-off Abdominal Obesity - WC >106 cm (men) and >99 cm (women).</p

Results of binomial regressions of prevalence of obesity and overweight by SEP indicator and survey period.

1<p>Estimated from binomial regression model for each prevalence measure and including SEP indicator, age as polynomial terms and four survey periods (1993/96, 1997/00, 2001/04, 2005/08): a positive value indicates that the prevalence is higher in the lower SEP subgroup.</p>2<p>Estimated from binomial regression model for each prevalence measure and including SEP indicator, age as polynomial terms, survey periods and interaction between four survey periods and SEP indicator: a positive value indicates that the difference in prevalence between SEP subgroups has widened over time.</p>3<p>Generalised obesity and overweight based on categories of body mass index.</p>4<p>Abdominal obesity and overweight based on categories of waist circumference.</p>5<p>Waist circumferences were not collected on the HSE core samples in 1995-96, 1999-00 & 2004.</p>6<p>Shorter vs longer time in education.</p>7<p>Manual vs non-manual social class.</p

Prevalence of age-adjusted generalised obesity, generalised overweight, abdominal obesity and abdominal overweight by social class and education subgroups in women.

<p>Prevalence of age-adjusted generalised obesity, generalised overweight, abdominal obesity and abdominal overweight by social class and education subgroups in women.</p

Additional file 2: of Understanding variations in patient screening and recruitment in a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial: a vignette-based study

Referral letters for evaluation of screening processes. (DOC 104 kb

Additional file 1: of Understanding variations in patient screening and recruitment in a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial: a vignette-based study

Letter of invitation to take part and instructions for screeners. (DOC 28 kb

Trends in age-adjusted prevalence of generalised and abdominal obesity and overweight and socio-demographic factors during 1993–2008 in England.

<p>Definitions of obesity and overweight cut-offs:</p>1<p>BMI≥30.0 kg/m².</p>2<p>BMI≥25.0 kg/m².</p>3<p>WC≥102 cm.</p>4<p>WC≥94 cm.</p>5<p>WC≥88 cm.</p>6<p>WC≥80 cm.</p>7<p>Average age of HSE sample in 18–75 age-band.</p>8<p>% where head of household’s occupation coded as manual.</p>9<p>% with shorter education relative to their age-group.</p>10<p>Waist circumferences were not collected in 1995–1996, 1999–2000 and 2004.</p

Integraal lokaal veiligheidsbeleid: tussen retoriek en realiteit

SPIRIT 2013 Checklist: Recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents*. (DOCX 36 kb

Assessing professional equipoise and views about a future clinical trial of invasive urodynamics prior to surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women: a survey within a mixed methods feasibility study.

Aims: To determine surgeons' views on invasive urodynamic testing (IUT) prior to surgery for stress (SUI) or stress predominant mixed urinary incontinence (MUI). Methods: Members of British Society of Urogynaecology (BSUG) and British Association of Urological Surgeons Section of Female, Neurological and Urodynamic Urology (BAUS-SFNUU) were sent an email invitation to complete an online “SurveyMonkey®” questionnaire regarding their current use of IUT prior to surgical treatment of SUI, their view about the necessity for IUT in various clinical scenarios, and their willingness to randomize patients into a future trial of IUT. A purposive sample of respondents was invited for telephone interview to explore further how they use IUT to inform clinical decisions, and to contextualize questionnaire responses. Results: There were 176/517 (34%) responses, 106/332 (32%) from gynecologists/urogynecologists and 67/185 (36%) from urologists; all respondents had access to IUT, and 89% currently arrange IUT for most women with SUI or stress predominant MUI. For a variety of scenarios with increasingly complex symptoms the level of individual equipoise (“undecided” about IUT) was very low (1–6%) and community equipoise was, at best, 66:34 (IUT “essential” vs. “unnecessary”) even for the simplest scenario. Nevertheless, 70% rated the research question underlying the proposed studies “very important” or “extremely important;” 60% recorded a “willingness to randomize” score ≥8/10. Conclusions: Most urogynecologists and urologists consider IUT essential before surgery in SUI with or without other symptoms. Most however recognize the need for further research, and indicated a willingness to recruit into multicenter trials addressing this question