>>>Click here to read the latest issue of Eyes on Evidence
This month in Eyes on Evidence...
Home-based self-sampling to test for sexually transmitted infections
A systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that taking samples at home compared with taking samples in a clinic improves the uptake of testing for sexually transmitted infections among women.
Risk of cervical or vaginal cancer in women treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
A population-based cohort study in Sweden reports that women treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 are at higher risk than women in the general population of developing and dying from cervical or vaginal cancer, especially in women older than 60 years.
Adverse drug reactions with new medicines
A retrospective study finds that over one-third of drugs approved in the USA between 1996 and 2012 had a 'boxed warning', usually describing potentially serious or life-threatening adverse reactions. Almost half of these drugs had warnings issued after launch.
Reducing hospital admissions from nursing homes for older people
A systematic review suggests that structuring and standardising clinical practice, providing mobile specialist geriatric services, and vaccinating residents against flu reduce hospital admissions from nursing homes for older people.
Short-term mortality after acute myocardial infarction
A study of 2 national registries indicates that 30-day mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction is higher in England and Wales than in Sweden, reflecting earlier changes in Swedish practice. A meta-analysis of patients with the same condition, mainly in North American or European populations, finds that those who present at night or at the weekend have higher short-term mortality than those who present during regular working hours.
Evidence Updates
NICE has recently published Evidence Updates on:
Psoriasis
Lower limb peripheral arterial disease
Correction
In the November issue of Eyes on Evidence, the article on 'Radical radiotherapy or prostatectomy for prostate cancer' contained an error in the description of the 2 study groups in the new evidence.
