GIM/FP/GP: [Formula: see text] Oncology: [Formula: see text] Hematology: [Formula: see text].

GIM/FP/GP: [Formula: see text] Geriatrics: [Formula: see text] Public Health: [Formula: see text].

Perinatal depression can have a deleterious impact on mothers and infants.

GIM/FP/GP: [Formula: see text].

Emergency Med: [Formula: see text] GIM/FP/GP: [Formula: see text] Neurology: [Formula: see text].

GIM/FP/GP: [Formula: see text] Endocrinology: [Formula: see text].

GIM/FP/GP: [Formula: see text] Cardiology: [Formula: see text] Hematology: [Formula: see text].

GIM/FP/GP: [Formula: see text] Cardiology: [Formula: see text] Public Health: [Formula: see text].

Data extraction is a critical but error-prone and labor-intensive task in evidence synthesis. Unlike other artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, large language models (LLMs) do not require labeled training data for data extraction.

GIM/FP/GP: [Formula: see text] Nephrology: [Formula: see text].

Urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) and urinary protein-creatinine ratio (UPCR) are both used in clinical practice to diagnose and monitor chronic kidney disease (CKD). Which measure exhibits stronger associations with clinical outcomes and whether this varies by patient characteristics are unknown.

Safe and reliable venous access is critical for high-quality cancer care. Patients with both solid and hematologic cancers require vascular access devices (VADs) for systemic chemotherapies and for supportive treatments, including blood products, antimicrobials, antiemetics, and fluids. However, VADs are associated with serious complications, including bloodstream infection and venous thromboembolism. Evidence-based guidance could maximize benefits and reduce risks in the selection and management of VADs in patients with cancer. The authors convened a 9-member international multidisciplinary panel and used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop recommendations for VAD selection, insertion, and management in patients with cancer. A literature review informed the development of clinical scenarios, which were rated by the panel for appropriateness based on cancer type, treatment indication, urgency, comorbidities, and anticipated duration of use. Of 1422 scenarios, 502 (35%) were rated as appropriate, 400 (28%) were rated as neutral/uncertain, and 520 (37%) were rated as inappropriate. Appropriateness of VAD selection varied by type of cancer, treatment urgency, and planned dwell time. For patients with acute hematologic cancers requiring urgent chemotherapy, placement of a double-lumen peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) or a tunneled central venous catheter (CVC) was rated as appropriate, regardless of treatment intensity or infusate characteristics. For patients with malignant solid tumors, a single-lumen tunneled CVC or implanted port was rated as appropriate for delivering chemotherapy, regardless of treatment intensity, urgency, or duration. In patients with advanced chronic kidney disease, coordination of care with a nephrologist to ensure vein preservation in the context of cancer prognosis was recommended. By developing comprehensive, evidence-informed expert recommendations, the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters in Adult Patients With Cancer (MAGIC-ONC) aims to improve clinical care, reduce complications, support quality improvement efforts, and advance the safety of vascular access for patients with cancer.

GIM/FP/GP: [Formula: see text] Public Health: [Formula: see text].

The comparative gastrointestinal safety across glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and tirzepatide is still unclear.

Evidence synthesis and guideline groups have the potential to address health disparities. In June 2024, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) cosponsored a summit to address racial and ethnic health equity in systematic reviews and other syntheses and guidelines, with support from Cochrane US. This article summarizes cross-cutting themes around future directions for systematic reviews and guidelines. Discussions addressed include the rationale for addressing racial health equity in systematic reviews and guidelines; representation of people with lived experience in systematic reviews and guidelines; approaches to developing and addressing equity-focused scope, including frameworks, methods, and thoughtful interpretation in systematic reviews; challenges and opportunities for guideline recommendations; need for standardized language and reporting for race and ethnicity in primary research studies, systematic reviews, and guidelines; and measures to track the progress of incorporating and addressing racial and ethnic health equity in systematic reviews and guidelines. Participants acknowledged that a one-size-fits-all approach was not possible or desired. Consensus priorities for next steps were to develop methods guidance to address equity in systematic reviews and guidelines; develop measures to track the progress of addressing racial and health equity in systematic reviews and guidelines; operationalize engaging representative interest holders in systematic reviews and guidelines; and share resources and learning for advancing health equity.

Racial and ethnic health equity is the absence of unfair and avoidable or remediable differences in health and well-being among persons belonging to different racial and ethnic groups. This article summarizes current guidance and identifies practices for systematic reviewers and guideline groups to develop clinical practice guidelines that mitigate such inequities. Current guidance recommends that systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines ensure a wider perspective; identify, prioritize, and develop equity-focused topics and questions; and apply specific methods and processes to answer equity-focused questions. Ensuring a wider perspective involves incorporating persons with lived experiences and other relevant nonclinical expertise into review and guideline teams as well as engagement of patients and members of affected populations in the review and guideline process. Examples for identifying and developing equity-focused topics and questions include using health equity as a criterion to select and prioritize topics, developing topics specific to mitigating racial and ethnic health inequities, and addressing upstream drivers of inequities and implementation considerations. Appropriate methods and processes might include considering different types of study designs, selecting the type of review accordingly, and using suitable evidentiary frameworks and thresholds to answer a broader set of equity-relevant questions. Several review, health technology assessment, guideline, and other health care decision-maker groups are implementing guidance to address racial and ethnic health equity.