EAU guidelines on surgical treatment of urinary incontinence

CONTEXT The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on urinary incontinence published in March 2012 have been rewritten based on an independent systematic review carried out by the EAU guidelines panel using a sustainable methodology. OBJECTIVE We present a short version here of the full guidelines on the surgical treatment of patients with urinary incontinence, with the aim of dissemination to a wider audience. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Evidence appraisal included a pragmatic review of existing systematic reviews and independent new literature searches based on Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) questions. The appraisal of papers was carried out by an international panel of experts, who also collaborated in a series of consensus discussions, to develop concise structured evidence summaries and action-based recommendations using a modified Oxford system. EVIDENCE SUMMARY The full version of the guidance is available online (www.uroweb.org/guidelines/online-guidelines/). The guidance includes algorithms that refer the reader back to the supporting evidence and have greater accessibility in daily clinical practice. Two original meta-analyses were carried out specifically for these guidelines and are included in this report. CONCLUSIONS These new guidelines present an up-to-date summary of the available evidence, together with clear clinical algorithms and action-based recommendations based on the best available evidence. Where high-level evidence is lacking, they present a consensus of expert panel opinion.

Pathology working group review of histopathologic specimens from three laboratory studies of diclofenac in trout.

While the pathology peer review/pathology working group (PWG) model has long been used in mammalian toxicologic pathology to ensure the accuracy, consistency, and objectivity of histopathology data, application of this paradigm to ecotoxicological studies has thus far been limited. In the current project, the PWG approach was used to evaluate histopathologic sections of gills, liver, kidney, and/or intestines from three previously published studies of diclofenac in trout, among which there was substantial variation in the reported histopathologic findings. The main objectives of this review process were to investigate and potentially reconcile these interstudy differences, and based on the results, to establish an appropriate no observed effect concentration (NOEC). Following a complete examination of all histologic sections and original diagnoses by a single experienced fish pathologist (pathology peer review), a two-day PWG session was conducted to allow members of a four-person expert panel to determine the extent of treatment-related findings in each of the three trout studies. The PWG was performed according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Pesticide Regulation (PR) 94-5 (EPA Pesticide Regulation, 1994). In accordance with standard procedures, the PWG review was conducted by the non-voting chairperson in a manner intended to minimize bias, and thus during the evaluation, the four voting panelists were unaware of the treatment group status of individual fish and the original diagnoses associated with the histologic sections. Based on the results of this review, findings related to diclofenac exposure included minimal to slightly increased thickening of the gill filament tips in fish exposed to the highest concentration tested (1,000 μg/L), plus a previously undiagnosed finding, decreased hepatic glycogen, which also occurred at the 1,000 μg/L dose level. The panel found little evidence to support other reported effects of diclofenac in trout, and thus the overall NOEC was determined to be >320 μg/L. By consensus, the PWG panel was able to identify diagnostic inconsistencies among and within the three prior studies; therefore this exercise demonstrated the value of the pathology peer review/PWG approach for assessing the reliability of histopathology results that may be used by regulatory agencies for risk assessment.

Reliabilität von retrospektiven Berufsverlaufsdaten. Ein Vergleich zwischen dem öffentlichen Dienst und der Privatwirtschaft anhand von Panel-Daten

Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird die Zuverlässigkeit retrospektiver Angaben der Befragten zu beruflichen Tätigkeiten in ihrem Berufsverlauf untersucht. Insbesondere ist ausgehend von einem Befund von De Graaf und Wegener (1989) zu klären, ob generell Beschäftigte des öffentlichen Dienstes ihren Berufsverlauf unzuverlässiger erinnern als Staatsbeschäftigte. Es wird davon ausgegangen, dass gerade Beamte aufgrund der institutionellen Besonderheiten ihrer Beschäftigung größere Schwierigkeiten haben, ihren Berufsverlauf konsistent zu rekonstruieren als andere Befragte. Empirische Analysen von Panel-Daten erhärten diese Vermutung, was die Anzahl der beruflichen Tätigkeiten anbelangt. Jedoch machen Beamte zu anderen Attributen ihres Berufsverlaufs ebenso zuverlässige Angaben wie andere Befragte auch. Diese beamtenspezifischen Erinnerungsprobleme sind bei zukünftigen Erhebungen mittels ereignisorientierter Befragungsinstrumente zu berücksichtigen.

Consensus Recommendations for Standard Therapy of Glomerular Disease in Dogs

Standard therapy forms the basic foundation for care of dogs with glomerular disease, as it is herein recommended for use in all affected animals regardless of causation of the disease. Consensus recommendations target the evaluation and management of proteinuria, inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, modification in dietary intake with special consideration for those nutrients with renal effects, diagnosis and treatment of systemic hypertension, and evaluation and management of body fluid volume status in dogs with glomerular disease.

Critical incidence reporting systems - an option in equine anaesthesia? Results from a panel meeting.

OBJECTIVE To provide a brief introduction into Critical Incident Reporting Systems (CIRS) as used in human medicine, and to report the discussion from a recent panel meeting discussion with 23 equine anaesthetists in preparation for a new CEPEF-4 (Confidential Enquiry into Perioperative Equine Fatalities) study. STUDY DESIGN Moderated group discussions, and review of literature. METHODS The first group discussion focused on the definition of 'preventable critical incidents' and/or 'near misses' in the context of equine anaesthesia. The second group discussion focused on categorizing critical incidents according to an established framework for analysing risk and safety in clinical medicine. RESULTS While critical incidents do occur in equine anaesthesia, no critical incident reporting system including systematic collection and analysis of critical incidents is in place. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Critical incident reporting systems could be used to improve safety in equine anaesthesia - in addition to other study types such as mortality studies.

Privacy Panel: Usable and Quantifiable Mobile Privacy

The ever increasing popularity of apps stems from their ability to provide highly customized services to the user. The flip side is that in order to provide such services, apps need access to very sensitive private information about the user. This leads to malicious apps that collect personal user information in the background and exploit it in various ways. Studies have shown that current app vetting processes which are mainly restricted to install time verification mechanisms are incapable of detecting and preventing such attacks. We argue that the missing fundamental aspect here is a comprehensive and usable mobile privacy solution, one that not only protects the user's location information, but also other equally sensitive user data such as the user's contacts and documents. A solution that is usable by the average user who does not understand or care about the low level technical details. To bridge this gap, we propose privacy metrics that quantify low-level app accesses in terms of privacy impact and transforms them to high-level user understandable ratings. We also provide the design and architecture of our Privacy Panel app that represents the computed ratings in a graphical user-friendly format and allows the user to define policies based on them. Finally, experimental results are given to validate the scalability of the proposed solution.

Consensus on melanonychia nail plate dermoscopy

This statement, focused on melanonychia and nail plate dermoscopy, is intended to guide medical professionals working with melanonychia and to assist choosing appropriate management for melanonychia patients. The International Study Group on Melanonychia was founded in 2007 and currently has 30 members, including nail experts and dermatopathologists with special expertise in nails. The need for common definitions of nail plate dermoscopy was addressed during the Second Meeting of this Group held in February 2008. Prior to this meeting and to date (2010) there have been no evidence-based guidelines on the use of dermoscopy in the management of nail pigmentation.

Advances in Teaching and Learning 2005 Webcast - Introductions and Expert Panel

Expert Panel: Documenting Teaching Scholarship for Promotion and Tenure Lemuel Moye, School of Public Health Miguel daCunha, School of Nursing William Tate, Dental School Katherine Loveland, Medical School

Panel report ECIS 2012: publication strategy for junior researchers: quantity vs. quality, importance of the first authorship and collaboration

The publication record is a key component of a successful academic career in IS. Despite its importance, its definition - especially for junior researchers―remains unclear. Is it better to have one A-publication or three Bpublications? Does being the third author on an A-publication carry more weight than being the first author on a Bpublication? Is it better to publish with as few co-authors as possible to demonstrate ability for independent work or is publishing with others a sign of good teamwork and academic excellence? Faced with these uncertainties, young researchers increasingly question the choices they make regarding their publication strategy. If unaddressed, these issues are bound to interfere with the quality of the IS research and scholars’ job satisfaction. This article raises these concerns associated with a publication strategy for junior researchers and reports the views voiced by five academics at a panel session at the European Conference on Information Systems 2012. In particular, the following topics are discussed: quantity vs. quality, value of the first authorship, the “optimal” number of authors, and the issues of co-authorship with an academic supervisor.

PANEL DISCUSSION: "Medical Ethics, Eugenics, and the Holocaust"

A panel discussion moderated by Dr. Thomas R. Cole, McGovern Chair in Medical Humanities and Director of the John P. McGovern Center for Humanities and Ethics at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston. Panelists include: Rabbi Samuel E. Karff, Rabbi Emeritus of Congregation Beth Israel and Associate Director of the John P. McGovern Center for Humanities and Ethics and Visiting Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at the Texas Medical Center. Cardinal DiNardo, the second Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston and the first cardinal archbishop from a diocese in the Southern United States. Dr. Sheldon Rubenfeld, Clinical Professor of Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine. He is Board Certified in Internal Medicine and in Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, and is a Fellow in both the American College of Physicians and the American College of Endocrinology. Dr. Rubenfeld has taught "Healing by Killing: Medicine During the Third Reich" for three years and "Jewish Medical Ethics" for seven years at Baylor College of Medicine. He created a six-month program about Medicine and the Holocaust at Holocaust Museum Houston, including an exhibit entitled How Healing Becomes Killing: Eugenics, Euthanasia, Extermination and a series of lectures by distinguished speakers entitled "The Michael E. DeBakey Medical Ethics Lecture Series".