Vorsorglicher Rechtsschutz. Vorsorgliche Massnahmen im internationalen Kontext, offene Fragen im neuen Arrestrecht und Sicherungsmassnahmen der ZPO, mit Beiträgen von Dr. Isabelle Chabloz, Dr. Richard Gassmann, PD Dr. Pascal Grolimund, Dr. Jürg Roth, Prof. Dr. Daniel Staehelin

Am 9. September 2011 führte das Institut für Verfahrensrecht und Internationales Privatrecht (CIVPRO) der Universität Bern in bewährter Zusammenarbeit mit der schweizerischen SchKG-Vereinigung die zweite Schweizer Tagung für Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht durch. Im Mittelpunkt der Tagung standen vorsorgliche Massnahmen im internationalen Kontext vor dem Hintergrund der neuesten Entwicklungen, namentlich (aber nicht nur) des neuen Lugano-Übereinkommens. Der Tagungsband enthält die auf den Vorträgen basierenden, überarbeiteten und erweiterten Beiträge namhafter Autorinnen und Autoren zum vorsorglichen Rechtsschutz im neuen IZPR (Pascal Grolimund). Besondere Aufmerksamkeit gilt dem neuen Arrestrecht sowohl im als auch ausserhalb des Anwendungsbereichs des Lugano-Übereinkommens (Richard Gassmann und Jürg Roth). Ebenso enthält der Band Beiträge zu den Sicherungsmassnahmen in der Realvollstreckung (Daniel Staehelin) sowie zur Anerkennung ausländischer vorsorglicher Massnahmen (Isabelle Chabloz).

Impact of Helicobacter pylori eradication on dyspepsia, health resource use, and quality of life in the Bristol helicobacter project: randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of a community based Helicobacter pylori screening and eradication programme on the incidence of dyspepsia, resource use, and quality of life, including a cost consequences analysis. DESIGN: H pylori screening programme followed by randomised placebo controlled trial of eradication. SETTING: Seven general practices in southwest England. PARTICIPANTS: 10,537 unselected people aged 20-59 years were screened for H pylori infection (13C urea breath test); 1558 of the 1636 participants who tested positive were randomised to H pylori eradication treatment or placebo, and 1539 (99%) were followed up for two years. INTERVENTION: Ranitidine bismuth citrate 400 mg and clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily for two weeks or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary care consultation rates for dyspepsia (defined as epigastric pain) two years after randomisation, with secondary outcomes of dyspepsia symptoms, resource use, NHS costs, and quality of life. RESULTS: In the eradication group, 35% fewer participants consulted for dyspepsia over two years compared with the placebo group (55/787 v 78/771; odds ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.94; P = 0.021; number needed to treat 30) and 29% fewer participants had regular symptoms (odds ratio 0.71, 0.56 to 0.90; P = 0.05). NHS costs were 84.70 pounds sterling (74.90 pounds sterling to 93.91 pounds sterling) greater per participant in the eradication group over two years, of which 83.40 pounds sterling (146 dollars; 121 euro) was the cost of eradication treatment. No difference in quality of life existed between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Community screening and eradication of H pylori is feasible in the general population and led to significant reductions in the number of people who consulted for dyspepsia and had symptoms two years after treatment. These benefits have to be balanced against the costs of eradication treatment, so a targeted eradication strategy in dyspeptic patients may be preferable.

Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the association of inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and lack of blinding with biased estimates of intervention effects varies with the nature of the intervention or outcome. DESIGN: Combined analysis of data from three meta-epidemiological studies based on collections of meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: 146 meta-analyses including 1346 trials examining a wide range of interventions and outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratios of odds ratios quantifying the degree of bias associated with inadequate or unclear allocation concealment, and lack of blinding, for trials with different types of intervention and outcome. A ratio of odds ratios <1 implies that inadequately concealed or non-blinded trials exaggerate intervention effect estimates. RESULTS: In trials with subjective outcomes effect estimates were exaggerated when there was inadequate or unclear allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios 0.69 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.82)) or lack of blinding (0.75 (0.61 to 0.93)). In contrast, there was little evidence of bias in trials with objective outcomes: ratios of odds ratios 0.91 (0.80 to 1.03) for inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and 1.01 (0.92 to 1.10) for lack of blinding. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of drug and non-drug interventions. Except for trials with all cause mortality as the outcome, the magnitude of bias varied between meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The average bias associated with defects in the conduct of randomised trials varies with the type of outcome. Systematic reviewers should routinely assess the risk of bias in the results of trials, and should report meta-analyses restricted to trials at low risk of bias either as the primary analysis or in conjunction with less restrictive analyses.