“
“Background: There is currently Compound C poor evidence base to support turbinate surgery in children. Submucosal diathermy (SMD) is a day case procedure offered to children who have refractory rhinitis. There is currently no well-defined population who will benefit from this procedure. The Glasgow Children’s Benefit Inventory (GCBI) is a validated questionnaire that can be used to assess benefit following an intervention.

Methods: In September 2009, questionnaires were sent by post to the parents of 70 children who underwent SMD between

2003 and 2006. If no response was received, an attempt to contact the parents by telephone was made. These questionnaires were then analysed to ascertain benefit scores.

Results: Returned questionnaires were received for 47 children (68%). 70% (33) felt that this had been a worthwhile procedure. Residual nasal symptoms were recorded, of which rhinorrhea was the most frequent (30, 64%), followed by nasal blockage (28, 60%). Of these children, 23 had a positive radio-allergosorbent test (RAST) and 21 were negative. Overall the median GCBI for BMS-777607 clinical trial children receiving SMD was 19.5. This was elevated in the RAST positive group (median score 27) and lower for the RAST negative

group (median score 14).

Conclusion: This study highlights some benefit to inferior turbinate study in children by using the GCBI. Improved benefit was not demonstrated significantly in older or younger children or in RAST positive or negative children. Further studies, by means of a randomised controlled trial are required to provide a better level of evidence for this procedure. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.”
“Objective: To examine the relationship between guideline panel members’ conflicts of interest and guideline recommendations on screening mammography in asymptomatic, average-risk women aged 40-49 selleck products years.

Study Design and Setting: We searched the National

Guideline Clearinghouse and MEDLINE for relevant guidelines published between January 2005 and June 2011. We examined the disclosures and specialties of the lead and secondary authors of these guidelines, as well as the publications of the lead authors.

Results: Twelve guidelines were identified with a total of 178 physician authors from a broad range of specialties. Of the four guidelines not recommending routine screening, none had a radiologist member, whereas of the eight guidelines recommending routine screening, five had a radiologist member (comparison of the proportions, P = 0.05). A guideline with radiologist authors was more likely to recommend routine screening (odds ratio = 6.05, 95% confidence interval = 0.57-infinity, P = 0.14). The proportion of primary care physicians on guideline panels recommending routine vs. nonroutine screening was significantly different (38% vs. 90% of authors; P = 0.01).