<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com">
<title>Evidence-Based Medicine current issue</title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com</link>
<description>Evidence-Based Medicine RSS feed -- current issue</description>
<prism:coverDisplayDate>Jun  1 2013 12:00:00:000AM</prism:coverDisplayDate>
<prism:publicationName>Evidence-Based Medicine</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>1356-5524</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e21?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e22?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e23?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e24?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e25?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e26?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e27?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e28?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e29?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e30?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/81?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/83?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/90?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/93?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/98?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/104?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/105?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/107?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/108?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/109?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/110?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/112?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/113?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/114?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/116?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/117?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/120?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/120-a?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
<image rdf:resource="http://hwmaint.ebm.bmj.com/homepage/EBM_95x60.gif" />
</channel>
<image rdf:about="http://hwmaint.ebm.bmj.com/homepage/EBM_95x60.gif">
<title>Evidence-Based Medicine</title>
<url>http://hwmaint.ebm.bmj.com/homepage/EBM_95x60.gif</url>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com</link>
</image>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e21?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Elective delivery of twins at 37 weeks gestation decreases infant complications]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e21?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Dodd</snm> <fnm>J</fnm></firstauthor>, Crowther C, Haslam R, <I>et al</I>.., for the Twins Timing of Birth Trial Group. Elective birth at 37&nbsp;weeks of gestation versus standard care for women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy at term: the Twins Timing of Birth Randomised Trial. <I><title>BJOG</title></I> <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>119</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>964</first-page>&ndash;74.</other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>In singleton pregnancies, offering elective delivery at or beyond term (40&nbsp;weeks gestation) reduces perinatal mortality.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> Epidemiological data suggest that in twin pregnancies &lsquo;term&rsquo; may be earlier than in singletons. Morbidity and mortality in twin pregnancies is the lowest in association with delivery at 36&ndash;38&nbsp;weeks gestation, leading the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to endorse elective delivery around 37&nbsp;weeks for dichorionic twins and 36&nbsp;weeks for monochorionic twins.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref> Data from randomised trials evaluating such a policy is lacking.</p> </sec> <sec id="s2"><st>Methods</st> <p>Dodd and colleagues report the results of a randomised controlled trial of...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stock, S. J., Norman, J. E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100963</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100963</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Clinical trials (epidemiology), Epidemiologic studies, Pregnancy]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Elective delivery of twins at 37 weeks gestation decreases infant complications]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Therapeutics</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e21</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e21</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e22?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Zinc supplementation for probable serious bacterial infection in early infancy may reduce the need for antibiotic change]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e22?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Bhatnagar</snm> <fnm>S</fnm></firstauthor>, Wadhwa N, Aneja S, <I>et al</I>.. Zinc as adjunct treatment in infants aged between 7 and 120&nbsp;days with probable serious bacterial infection: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. <I><title>Lancet</title></I> <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>379</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>2072</first-page>&ndash;8.</other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>It has now been over 15&nbsp;years since the publication of the landmark study by Sazawal <I>et al</I><cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> demonstrating the efficacy of zinc supplementation during an acute diarrheal episode in children under 5. Since then, dozens of clinical trials have been undertaken to further unravel the role of zinc supplementation to reduce under-5 morbidity and mortality. It is widely accepted that in zinc-deficient populations, zinc supplementation has both curative and preventive effects in the management of acute or chronic childhood diarrhoea with the potential to significantly reduce under-5 mortality.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> While systematic reviews have concluded zinc has no impact on childhood pneumonia, in particular, in those 6 to 36&nbsp;months of age,...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Larson, C. P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100925</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100925</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Neurogastroenterology, Epidemiologic studies, Immunology (including allergy), Pneumonia (infectious disease), Childhood nutrition, Pneumonia (respiratory medicine)]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Zinc supplementation for probable serious bacterial infection in early infancy may reduce the need for antibiotic change]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Therapeutics</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e22</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e22</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e23?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Early planned birth may reduce neonatal sepsis compared to expectant management following preterm premature rupture of the membranes close to term]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e23?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>van der Ham</snm> <fnm>DP</fnm></firstauthor>, Vijgen SM, Nijhuis JG, <I>et al</I>..; on behalf of the PPROMEXIL trial group. Induction of labor versus expectant management in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes between 34 and 37&nbsp;weeks: a randomized controlled trial. <I><title>PLoS Med</title></I> <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>9</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>e1001208</first-page>.</other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>Prelabour rupture of the membranes (rupture of the membranes prior to the onset of labour) occurs in 20% of all births.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> When this occurs <I>at term</I> there is good evidence that early delivery is associated with a lower incidence of maternal infection and increased maternal satisfaction compared with expectant management.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> <I>Preterm</I> prelabour rupture of membranes (PPROM) complicates up to 2% of all pregnancies and is the cause of 40% of all preterm births.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref> Unlike at term, the optimal management of women with PPROM is not known. Surveys indicate that clinicians are choosing electively to deliver early...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Morris, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100835</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100835</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Clinical trials (epidemiology), Pregnancy, Diabetes]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Early planned birth may reduce neonatal sepsis compared to expectant management following preterm premature rupture of the membranes close to term]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Therapeutics</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e23</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e23</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e24?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[A brief intervention by emergency department providers decreased 12 month alcohol use]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e24?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>D'Onofrio</snm> <fnm>G</fnm></firstauthor>, Fiellin DA, Pantalon MV, <I>et al</I>.. A brief intervention reduces hazardous and harmful drinking in emergency department patients. <I><title>Ann Emerg Med</title></I> <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>60</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>181&ndash;92</first-page>.</other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>Emergency department (ED) patients have a high prevalence of alcohol use problems making it potentially an opportune setting to intervene. Brief interventions for alcohol misuse have demonstrated efficacy in other medical settings, but within the ED it has been less clear.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> The study by D'Onofrio and colleagues provides additional insights into this question. This randomised controlled trial at a single urban academic ED evaluated whether a brief intervention for alcohol, with or without a booster intervention, decreases 7-day alcohol use and 28-day binge use (ie, greater than four drinks per occasion for men and three drinks for women) 12&nbsp;months later.</p> </sec> <sec id="s2"><st>Methods</st> <p>The study randomised 889 adult ED patients who screened positive for hazardous...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mello, M. J., Longabaugh, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-101024</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-101024</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Clinical trials (epidemiology), Alcohol-related disorders, Drugs misuse (including addiction), Screening (epidemiology), Screening (public health)]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[A brief intervention by emergency department providers decreased 12 month alcohol use]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Therapeutics</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e24</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e24</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e25?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[High-intensity interventions promote smoking cessation among hospitalized patients]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e25?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Rigotti</snm> <fnm>NA</fnm></firstauthor>, Clair C, Munaf&ograve; MR, <I>et al</I>.. Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. <I><title>Cochrane Database Syst Rev</title></I> <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>5</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>CD001837</first-page>.</other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>Hospitalisation represents a potent &lsquo;teachable moment&rsquo; for the delivery of smoking cessation interventions. Many smokers are hospitalised for tobacco-related diseases that personalise the risks of persistent smoking and thereby enhance motivation to quit and receptivity to tobacco cessation assistance. Most hospitals are smoke-free and many have adopted broad, smoke-free campus policies that further restrict smoking on hospital grounds, making smoking during hospitalisation particularly difficult and inconvenient. These external restrictions increase the likelihood of smokers being amenable to the use of tobacco cessation medications to help manage symptoms of acute nicotine withdrawal. Recognising the potential value of promoting smoking cessation during hospitalisation, the US Joint Commission has established a set of tobacco cessation performance indicators in an effort to improve quality of care for hospitalised...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ostroff, J. S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100879</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100879</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Medical management, Smoking and tobacco, Drugs: cardiovascular system, Unwanted effects / adverse reactions, Drugs misuse (including addiction), Health education, Smoking]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[High-intensity interventions promote smoking cessation among hospitalized patients]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Prevention</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e25</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e25</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e26?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Confirming the value of pulse oximetry screening for diagnosing critical congenital heart disease]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e26?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Thangaratinam</snm> <fnm>S</fnm></firstauthor>, Brown K, Zamora J, <I>et al</I>.. Pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart defects in asymptomatic newborn babies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. <I><title>Lancet</title></I> <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>379</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>2459</first-page>&ndash;64.</other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>Thangaratinam and colleagues, studied the value of pulse oximetry screening of neonates for critical congenital heart disease (CCHD). CCHD is usually defined as a congenital heart disease (CHD) that requires treatment in the neonatal period to prevent death or severe morbidity; most of these neonates have ductus-dependent lesions. About 25&ndash;40% of children born with CHD have CCHD, and 10&ndash;35% of these infants leave hospital undiagnosed. Some die at home, and others return to hospital critically ill, with resulting higher operative mortality and morbidity, increased hospital costs and suboptimal outcomes.</p> <p>Pulse oximetry has been recommended to decrease these missed diagnoses, but the sensitivity and specificity of this screening method have not been thoroughly evaluated. Two large studies in...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hoffman, J. I. E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100971</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100971</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[EBM Diagnosis, Epidemiologic studies, Genetics, Drugs: cardiovascular system, Hypertension, Radiology, Pulmonary hypertension, Clinical diagnostic tests, Radiology (diagnostics), Screening (epidemiology), Screening (public health)]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Confirming the value of pulse oximetry screening for diagnosing critical congenital heart disease]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Diagnosis</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e26</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e26</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e27?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Primary care-based screening, diagnosis and management of postpartum depression effective for improving symptoms]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e27?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Yawn</snm> <fnm>BP</fnm></firstauthor>, Dietrich AJ, Wollan P, <I>et al</I>. In collaboration with the TRIPPD practices. TRIPPD: a Practice-Based Network Effectiveness Study of Postpartum Depression Screening and Management. <I><title>Ann Fam Med</title></I> <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>10</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>320</first-page>&ndash;9.</other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>Postpartum depression (PPD) is a debilitating mental health disorder that negatively affects maternal functioning and child outcomes. Prevalence rates demonstrate that up to 19.2% of women will develop a major or minor depressive episode within the first 3&nbsp;months postpartum.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> Depression places the second greatest burden on the health of childbearing women worldwide. Despite the prevalence and negative consequences of PPD, it is a condition that has been under-recognised and undertreated in primary care settings. Universal screening efforts have been implemented in multiple medical and community settings. However, there are drawbacks to universal screening and limited empirical data demonstrating its effectiveness. A major criticism of universal screening is the availability and capacity to...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Boyd, R. C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100972</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100972</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[EBM Quality improvement, General practice / family medicine, Nursing, Pregnancy, Child and adolescent psychiatry, Mood disorders (including depression), Screening (epidemiology), Screening (public health)]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Primary care-based screening, diagnosis and management of postpartum depression effective for improving symptoms]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Quality improvement</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e27</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e27</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e28?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The cardiovascular risk of azithromycin was increased in a large observational cohort study, contradicting findings from prior randomised trials]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e28?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Ray</snm> <fnm>WA</fnm></firstauthor>, Murray KT, Hall K, <I>et al</I>.. Azithromycin and the risk of cardiovascular death. <I><title>N Engl J Med</title></I> <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>366</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>1881</first-page>&ndash;90.</other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>Azithromycin, a widely used broad-spectrum macrolide antibiotic, belongs to the same class of antibiotics as erythromycin and clarithromycin, both of which have been associated with an increased risk of potentially lethal arrhythmias. Azithromycin has generally been viewed as &lsquo;safe&rsquo; from a cardiovascular standpoint, but recently several reports of azithromycin-associated QT interval prolongation have been published. In an effort to ascertain whether azithromycin carries any cardiovascular risk, Ray <I>et al</I> evaluated the effect of its use on risk of death in a large Tennessee Medicaid cohort.</p> </sec> <sec id="s2"><st>Methods</st> <p>The cohort study included patients (aged 30&ndash;74&nbsp;years who took azithromycin from 1992 to 2006 (347&nbsp;795 prescriptions)). Subjects were excluded if they had life-threatening non-cardiovascular illness, history of drug abuse, residency in a nursing home or hospitalisation...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Muhlestein, J. B.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100900</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100900</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[EBM Prognosis, Sexual transmitted infections (bacterial), Health policy, Clinical trials (epidemiology), Epidemiologic studies, Drugs: cardiovascular system, Drugs misuse (including addiction), Health service research, Health education]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The cardiovascular risk of azithromycin was increased in a large observational cohort study, contradicting findings from prior randomised trials]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Prognosis</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e28</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e28</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e29?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Initiation of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods (IUDs and implant) at pregnancy termination reduces repeat abortion]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e29?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Cameron</snm> <fnm>S</fnm></firstauthor>, Glasier A, Chen Z. Effect of contraception provided at termination of pregnancy and incidence of subsequent termination of pregnancy. <I><title>BJOG</title></I> <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>119</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>1074</first-page>&ndash;80.</other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>Despite the availability of effective modern contraceptive methods, unplanned pregnancy continues to be a major problem worldwide. In 2008, the worldwide abortion rate was found to be 28/1000 women aged 15&ndash;44, unchanged from 2003 rates of 29/1000 women.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> Immediate initiation of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods following pregnancy termination has been identified as an effective strategy to reduce repeat unintended pregnancy and abortion. Access to these LARC methods&mdash;intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants&mdash;continues to be problematic, especially in the setting of pregnancy termination. Previous research has shown that delayed initiation of these methods often results in failure to obtain the method. Improving access to the most effective methods at the time of termination when women are particularly motivated to prevent...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[McNicholas, C., Peipert, J. F.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-101023</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-101023</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[EBM Prognosis, Contraception, Drugs: obstetrics and gynaecology, Pregnancy, Ethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Initiation of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods (IUDs and implant) at pregnancy termination reduces repeat abortion]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Prognosis</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e29</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e29</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e30?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Lack of association between proton pump inhibitors and adverse events in patients taking clopidogrel and aspirin]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/e30?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Douglas</snm> <fnm>IJ</fnm></firstauthor>, Evans SJ, Hingorani AD, <I>et al</I>.. Clopidogrel and interaction with proton pump inhibitors: comparison between cohort and within person study designs. <I><title>BMJ</title></I> <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>345</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>e4388</first-page></other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>Clopidogrel inhibits the P2Y12 platelet receptor and is used in patients with acute coronary syndromes or ischaemic stroke to prevent recurrent vascular events. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), however, have been shown to reduce the pharmacodynamic effect of clopidogrel upon platelet inhibition, and have been linked in retrospective studies to a higher rate of ischaemic outcomes in patients taking clopidogrel.</p> </sec> <sec id="s2"><st>Methods</st> <p>A total of 24&nbsp;471 patients in the General Practice Research Database in the UK (beginning in 2003) concurrently prescribed aspirin and clopidogrel were included. There were 12&nbsp;439 (50%) patients receiving a PPI at some point during the study. The exposure of interest was prescription of a PPI, divided into strong CYP 2C19 inhibitors (omeprazole, esomeprazole and lansoprazole)...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Waksman, R., Gaglia, M. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100983</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100983</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Smoking and tobacco, Epidemiologic studies, Drugs: cardiovascular system, Stroke, Ischaemic heart disease, Health education, Smoking]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Lack of association between proton pump inhibitors and adverse events in patients taking clopidogrel and aspirin]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Aetiology</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e30</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e30</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/81?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA['We do not see the lens through which we look': screening mammography evidence and non-financial conflicts of interest]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/81?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <sec> <p>It has become clear that conflicts of interest can influence scientific judgement and reporting of research results in the medical literature.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> In this issue of <I>EBM</I>, Rasmussen <I>et al</I><cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> studied citation of systematic reviews of breast cancer screening<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3&ndash;5</cross-ref><cross-ref type="bib" refid="R4"></cross-ref><cross-ref type="bib" refid="R5"></cross-ref> that found smaller benefits and greater harms than did prior reviews. They then compared how the reviews were cited by general versus specialty journals. In most papers citing the reviews, the key, perhaps controversial, findings regarding overdiagnosis and breast cancer mortality were not discussed. But in those papers that did describe those findings, papers published in general medical journals were more likely than those published in specialty journals to explicitly agree with the findings about overtreatment and overdiagnosis, or to have cited the results without comment. Similarly, specialty journal articles were more likely than general journal articles to explicitly reject...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Saitz, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2013-101344</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2013-101344</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Epidemiologic studies, General practice / family medicine, Screening (oncology), Radiology, Clinical diagnostic tests, Radiology (diagnostics), Screening (epidemiology), Ethics, Screening (public health)]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA['We do not see the lens through which we look': screening mammography evidence and non-financial conflicts of interest]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Editorials</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>81</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>82</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/83?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Citations of scientific results and conflicts of interest: the case of mammography screening]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/83?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Introduction</st>
<p>In 2001, a Cochrane review of mammography screening questioned whether screening reduces breast cancer mortality, and a more comprehensive review in <I>Lancet</I>, also in 2001, reported considerable overdiagnosis and overtreatment. This led to a heated debate and a recent review of the evidence by UK experts intended to be independent.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>To explore if general medical and specialty journals differed in accepting the results and methods of three Cochrane reviews on mammography screening.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>We identified articles citing the <I>Lancet</I> review from 2001 or updated versions of the Cochrane review (last search 20 April 2012). We explored which results were quoted, whether the methods and results were accepted (explicit agreement or quoted without caveats), differences between general and specialty journals, and change over time.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>We included 171 articles. The results for overdiagnosis were not quoted in 87% (148/171) of included articles and the results for breast cancer mortality were not quoted in 53% (91/171) of articles. 11% (7/63) of articles in general medical journals accepted the results for overdiagnosis compared with 3% (3/108) in specialty journals (p=0.05). 14% (9/63) of articles in general medical journals accepted the methods of the review compared with 1% (1/108) in specialty journals (p=0.001). Specialty journals were more likely to explicitly reject the estimated effect on breast cancer mortality 26% (28/108), compared with 8% (5/63) in general medical journals, p=0.02.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Articles in specialty journals were more likely to explicitly reject results from the Cochrane reviews, and less likely to accept the results and methods, than articles in general medical journals. Several specialty journals are published by interest groups and some authors have vested interests in mammography screening.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rasmussen, K., Jorgensen, K. J., Gotzsche, P. C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-101216</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-101216</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Epidemiologic studies, Open access, Editor's choice, Screening (oncology), Radiology, Clinical diagnostic tests, Radiology (diagnostics), Screening (epidemiology), Ethics, Screening (public health)]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Citations of scientific results and conflicts of interest: the case of mammography screening]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Original EBM Research</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>83</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>89</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/90?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Medical apps for smartphones: lack of evidence undermines quality and safety]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/90?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Increasing numbers of healthcare professionals are using smartphones and their associated applications (apps) in daily clinical care. While these medical apps hold great potential for improving clinical practice, little is known about the possible dangers associated with their use. Breaches of patient confidentiality, conflicts of interests and malfunctioning clinical decision-making apps could all negatively impact on patient care. We propose several strategies to enhance the development of evidence-based medical apps while retaining their open nature. The increasing use of medical apps calls for broader discussion across medicine's organising and accrediting bodies. The field of medical apps is currently one of the most dynamic in medicine, with real potential to change the way evidence-based healthcare is delivered in the future. Establishing appropriate regulatory procedures will enable this potential to be fulfilled, while at all times ensuring the safety of the patient.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Buijink, A. W. G., Visser, B. J., Marshall, L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100885</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100885</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Patients, Ethics, Legal and forensic medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Medical apps for smartphones: lack of evidence undermines quality and safety]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Perspective</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>90</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>92</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/93?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Searching for the right evidence: how to answer your clinical questions using the 6S hierarchy]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/93?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Asking and answering clinical questions during daily practice can be challenging and time consuming. Knowing the resources available to answer a specific clinical question can lead to a more efficient and effective search strategy and thus, to a more applicable answer based on the levels of evidence available. This primer reviews how to search for the right evidence using a specified hierarchy and provides examples of pre-appraised resources with corresponding websites to help with your search.</p> <sec><st>Introduction</st> <p>The readers of our journal most likely have busy clinical, administrative and/or teaching roles. As such, time is of the essence when thinking about answering clinical questions that arise in patient care. DiCenso and colleagues recently published a hierarchy of pre-appraised evidence called the 6S model.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> This model denotes in a pyramidal fashion the six levels of evidence available in clinical decision making. It starts with the largest resource available...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Windish, D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100995</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100995</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Patients, Editor's choice, General practice / family medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Searching for the right evidence: how to answer your clinical questions using the 6S hierarchy]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Primer</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>93</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>97</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/98?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[What effect does breastfeeding have on coeliac disease? A systematic review update]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/98?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>To update the evidence published in a previous systematic review and meta-analysis that compared the effect of breastfeeding on risk of coeliac disease (CD).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Material and methods</st>
<p>A systematic review of observational studies published between 1966 and May 2004 on the subject was conducted in 2005. This update is a systematic review of observational studies published between June 2004 and April 2011. Pubmed, EMBASE and Cinahl were searched for published studies that examined the association between breastfeeding and CD.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>After duplicates were removed 90 citations were screened. Four observational studies were included in the review. Two of three studies which had examined the duration of breastfeeding and CD reported significant associations between longer duration of breastfeeding and later onset of CD (OR ranged from 0.18 to 0.665). Breastfeeding during the introduction of gluten to the infant was reported to have a protective effect in two studies.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Our findings support previous published findings that breastfeeding seems to offer a protection against the development of CD in predisposed infants. Breastfeeding at time of gluten introduction is the most significant variable in reducing the risk. Timing of gluten introduction may also be a factor in the development of CD.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Henriksson, C., Bostrom, A.-M., Wiklund, I. E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100607</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100607</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Childhood nutrition]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[What effect does breastfeeding have on coeliac disease? A systematic review update]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Systematic review</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>98</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>103</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/104?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Oral egg immunotherapy is effective for desensitisation but not for inducing sustained tolerance in the majority of egg allergic children]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/104?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Burks</snm> <fnm>AW</fnm></firstauthor>, Jones SM, Wood RA, <I>et al</I>.; Consortium of Food Allergy Research (CoFAR). Oral immunotherapy for treatment of egg allergy in children. <I><title>N Engl J Med</title></I>. <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>367</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>233</first-page>&ndash;43.</other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s2"><st>Context</st> <p>Egg allergy is now one of the most common food allergies in infants and children in Australia, North America, the UK and Europe. Although the natural history of egg allergy is for tolerance and resolution in a significant portion of children, emerging trends suggest that this resolution may be less common and occur at an older age than previously believed.</p> <p>Egg and egg proteins are ubiquitous and strict avoidance is both difficult and burdensome for the individual, family and school. Avoidance of allergen forms the mainstay of current treatment for food allergy. It is therefore a therapeutic priority to establish safe and effective means of desensitising or accelerating natural tolerance to food allergens. Egg allergy is...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Campbell, D. E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100993</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100993</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Immunology (including allergy)]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Oral egg immunotherapy is effective for desensitisation but not for inducing sustained tolerance in the majority of egg allergic children]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Therapeutics</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>104</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>105</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/105?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Intensive glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes is associated with a reduction in albuminuria and may be associated with reduced end-stage renal disease]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/105?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Coca</snm> <fnm>SG</fnm></firstauthor>, Ismail-Beigi F, Haq N, <I>et al</I>.. Role of intensive glucose control in development of renal end points in type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. <I><title>Ann Intern Med</title></I> <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>172</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>761</first-page>&ndash;9.</other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>Diabetic nephropathy is the commonest cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD)<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> making the prevention of its onset and progression, critically important. While epidemiological studies have linked hyperglycaemia to diabetic nephropathy, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to date have reported the beneficial effects of intensive glycaemic control on early stages of nephropathy, that is, albuminuria levels but not ESRD. On the basis of this evidence, guidelines have recommended a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of &lt;7% to prevent renal outcomes. This systematic review specifically examines whether intensive glycaemic control improves a range of early and advanced renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).</p> </sec> <sec...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lo, C., Zoungas, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100904</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100904</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Clinical trials (epidemiology), Epidemiologic studies, Renal medicine, Diabetes]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Intensive glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes is associated with a reduction in albuminuria and may be associated with reduced end-stage renal disease]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Therapeutics</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>105</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>106</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/107?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Cervical pessary reduces spontaneous delivery before 34 weeks and adverse outcomes in pregnant women with a short cervix]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/107?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <b>Goya M</b>, Pratcorona L, Merced C, <I>et al</I>. Pesario Cervical para Evitar Prematuridad (PECEP) Trial Group. Cervical pessary in pregnant women with a short cervix (PECEP): an open-label randomised controlled trial. <I>Lancet</I> 2012;<b>379</b>:1800&ndash;6.</p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>Prematurity prevention continues to be one of the biggest challenges in perinatal medicine. Most pregnancies complicated by preterm birth occur in gestations without any historical risk factors. The most effective therapeutic approach for the asymptomatic patient with a short cervix continues to evolve. For over 50&nbsp;years, the cervical pessary has been used to treat women at risk of cervical insufficiency and preterm delivery. However, the value of the pessary in preventing prematurity in patients without historical risk factors has not been properly studied.</p> </sec> <sec id="s2"><st>Methods</st> <p>The cervical pessary in pregnant women with a short cervix (PECEP) trial by Goya and colleagues, represents the largest randomised study of cervical pessary in asymptomatic...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ludmir, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100864</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100864</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Clinical trials (epidemiology), Pregnancy, Radiology, Clinical diagnostic tests, Radiology (diagnostics)]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Cervical pessary reduces spontaneous delivery before 34 weeks and adverse outcomes in pregnant women with a short cervix]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Prevention</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>107</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>108</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/108?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT: benefits and potential risks]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/108?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Bach</snm> <fnm>PB</fnm></firstauthor>, Mirkin JN, Oliver TK, <I>et al</I>.. Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review. <I><title>JAMA</title></I> <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>307</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>2418&ndash;29</first-page>.</other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> The majority of patients present with advanced disease and the current 5-year survival is only 15%.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> Previous research showed no mortality benefit to screening with chest radiography and sputum cytology. The recent results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) are the first to show a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality with the use of low-dose CT (LDCT) in high risk individuals. The potential for harm with screening and generalisability of results have been a cause for concern in initiation of lung cancer screening programmes. As such, a multisociety collaborative initiative was undertaken to develop the foundation for a clinical guideline for lung cancer screening.</p> </sec> <sec...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tanner, N. T., Silvestri, G. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100926</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100926</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Smoking and tobacco, Clinical trials (epidemiology), Epidemiologic studies, Stroke, Screening (oncology), Radiology, Clinical diagnostic tests, Radiology (diagnostics), Screening (epidemiology), Guidelines, Health education, Screening (public health), Smoking]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT: benefits and potential risks]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Prevention</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>108</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>109</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/109?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Hormone therapy not recommended for chronic disease prevention in menopausal women]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/109?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Nelson</snm> <fnm>HD</fnm></firstauthor>, Walker M, Zakher B, <I>et al</I>.. Menopausal hormone therapy for the primary prevention of chronic conditions: a systematic review to update the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. <I><title>Ann Intern Med</title></I> <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>157</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>104</first-page>&ndash;13.</other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>In 2005, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated its 2002 hormone replacement therapy recommendations, advising against the routine use of oestrogen and progestin (E+P) and unopposed oestrogen (E) to prevent chronic conditions in menopausal women. Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) had been commonly prescribed to prevent conditions such as cardiovascular disease, dementia and osteoporosis. Clinical trial data dramatically changed clinical practice. The Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study (HERS) examined conjugated equine oestrogen (CEE)+medroxyprogesterone acetate in women with coronary disease; hormone therapy did not decrease coronary events. Primary prevention was studied in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial: E+P or E in women with hysterectomy. Both trials were terminated prematurely...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wenger, N. K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100992</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100992</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Pancreas and biliary tract, Epidemiologic studies, Drugs: cardiovascular system, Dementia, Stroke, Contraception, Drugs: obstetrics and gynaecology, Menopause (including HRT), Ischaemic heart disease, Venous thromboembolism, Memory disorders (psychiatry), Pulmonary embolism, Musculoskeletal syndromes, Osteoporosis, Guidelines, Injury]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Hormone therapy not recommended for chronic disease prevention in menopausal women]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Prevention</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>109</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>110</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/110?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Cranberry-containing products are associated with a protective effect against urinary tract infections]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/110?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Wang</snm> <fnm>CH</fnm></firstauthor>, Fang CC, Chen NC, <I>et al</I>.. Cranberry-containing products for prevention of urinary tract infections in susceptible populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. <I><title>Arch Intern Med</title></I> <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>172</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>988</first-page>&ndash;96.</other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common clinical problem that often recurs, leading to the institution of preventive measures for recurrent UTI (rUTI).<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> Antimicrobial prophylaxis is highly effective, but risks adverse effects and induction of resistance.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> These considerations and widespread increases in antimicrobial resistance have intensified interest in alternative means of preventing UTIs, such as cranberry products. However, few well-designed clinical trials were available for analysis in the last Cochrane review of cranberry for the prevention of rUTI in 2008.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref> Wang and colleagues have re-evaluated this issue, adding several trials and an analysis of factors influencing efficacy of cranberry in...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stapleton, A. E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100984</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100984</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Geriatric medicine, Clinical trials (epidemiology), Urinary tract infections, Drugs: CNS (not psychiatric), Pregnancy, Vulvovaginal disorders, Urinary tract infections]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Cranberry-containing products are associated with a protective effect against urinary tract infections]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Prevention</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>110</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>111</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/112?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Appointment and medication non-adherence is associated with increased mortality in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/112?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Currie</snm> <fnm>CJ</fnm></firstauthor>, Peyrot M, Morgan CL, <I>et al</I>.. The impact of treatment noncompliance on mortality in people with type 2 diabetes. <I><title>Diabetes Care</title></I> <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>35</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>1279</first-page>&ndash;84.</other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>Diabetes increases the risk of death twofold; identifying novel modifiable risk factors could improve patient outcomes and focus healthcare spending in areas with the highest return. Non-adherence to prescribed medications and clinic appointments may be independent risk factors for excess mortality.</p> </sec> <sec id="s2"><st>Methods</st> <p>Currie and colleagues performed a database review of insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes who followed up for 6&nbsp;months prior to insulin initiation and at least 30&nbsp;months post-insulin initiation during which compliance with any medications and appointments were evaluated. Mortality was assessed from the end of 36&nbsp;months (index date) which fell between 2000 and 2009. Information from 15&nbsp;984 charts was collected until death or data censorship (median and IQR observation time was 3.16 (1.50 to 5.37)...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bundrick Harrison, L., Lingvay, I.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100912</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100912</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[EBM Prognosis, Smoking and tobacco, Epidemiologic studies, General practice / family medicine, Hypertension, Diabetes, Health education, Smoking]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Appointment and medication non-adherence is associated with increased mortality in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Prognosis</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>112</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>113</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/113?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Opposite impacts of dietary versus supplemental calcium on cardiovascular health]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/113?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Li</snm> <fnm>K</fnm></firstauthor>, Kaaks R, Linseisen J, <I>et al</I>.. Associations of dietary calcium intake and calcium supplementation with myocardial infarction and stroke risk and overall cardiovascular mortality in the Heidelberg cohort of the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition study (EPIC-Heidelberg). <I><title>Heart</title></I> <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>98</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>920</first-page>&ndash;5.</other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>Calcium supplementation is widely used to maintain bone health. Growing data suggests that calcium supplementation, but not dietary calcium intake, may harm cardiovascular (CV) health.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> There is no randomised controlled trial (RCT) that addressed CV events as primary endpoints and such an RCT is unlikely to be conducted considering ethical issues.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref></p> </sec> <sec id="s2"><st>Methods</st> <p>The Heidelberg prospective cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study data was examined to evaluate the associations of calcium intake (total or separated dairy and non-dairy sources) and calcium supplementation with myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Guessous, I., Bochud, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100911</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100911</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[EBM Prognosis, Clinical trials (epidemiology), Epidemiologic studies, General practice / family medicine, Drugs: cardiovascular system, Stroke, Diet, Ischaemic heart disease]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Opposite impacts of dietary versus supplemental calcium on cardiovascular health]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Prognosis</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>113</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>114</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/114?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Exclusive bottle feeding of either formula or breast milk is associated with greater infant weight gain than exclusive breastfeeding, but findings may not reflect a causal effect of bottle feeding]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/114?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Li</snm> <fnm>R</fnm></firstauthor>, Magadia J, Fein SB, <I>et al</I>.. Risk of bottle-feeding for rapid weight gain during the first year of life. <I><title>Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med</title></I> <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>166</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>431</first-page>&ndash;6.</other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>The paper by Li <I>et al</I> addresses a topic that has been much studied and debated over the last several decades: the relationship between type of infant feeding and growth in the first year of life. This study adds a new twist, however: the consideration of bottle feeding, even among infants who receive breast milk via the bottle, rather than formula. Although formula and other nonhuman milk can be provided only by bottle, breast milk can be provided either via the breast or the bottle. Many breastfeeding mothers, particularly those who choose to or are obligated to return to work during breastfeeding, will pump their milk to provide bottled breast milk for their infants during their absence.</p> </sec>...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kramer, M. S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100905</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100905</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[EBM Prognosis, Clinical trials (epidemiology), Childhood nutrition, Occupational and environmental medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Exclusive bottle feeding of either formula or breast milk is associated with greater infant weight gain than exclusive breastfeeding, but findings may not reflect a causal effect of bottle feeding]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Prognosis</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>114</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>115</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/116?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Long-term coffee consumption associated with reduced risk of total and cause-specific mortality]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/116?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Freedman</snm> <fnm>ND</fnm></firstauthor>, Park Y, Abnet CC, Hollenbeck AR, Sinha R, <I>et al</I>.. Association of coffee drinking with total and cause-specific mortality. <I><title>N Engl J Med</title></I> <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>366</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>1891</first-page>&ndash;904.</other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>The effect of coffee consumption on health is being re-examined based on new evidence suggesting a beneficial effect of components in coffee other than caffeine,<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1&ndash;3</cross-ref><cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2"></cross-ref><cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3"></cross-ref> an effect that may be seen in the long term after the acute harmful effects of caffeine have disappeared. Supporting this idea, several recent well-designed cohort studies have found an inverse association between long-term coffee consumption and the risk of all-cause mortality in different populations.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R4">4&ndash;6</cross-ref><cross-ref type="bib" refid="R5"></cross-ref><cross-ref type="bib" refid="R6"></cross-ref> On the contrary, because coffee consumption can acutely increase the risk of several health problems (insomnia, anxiety and hypertension), it is still possible that the above association reflects the fact that coffee drinkers tend to be...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lopez-Garcia, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100878</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100878</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[EBM Aetiology, Smoking and tobacco, Epidemiologic studies, Drugs: cardiovascular system, Sleep disorders (neurology), Stroke, Hypertension, Diet, Sleep disorders, Sleep disorders (respiratory medicine), Health education, Smoking]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Long-term coffee consumption associated with reduced risk of total and cause-specific mortality]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Aetiology</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>116</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>117</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/117?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Elective induction of labour is associated with decreased perinatal mortality and lower odds of caesarean section at 40 and 41 weeks]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/117?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Commentary on: <bib><other-ref><firstauthor><snm>Stock</snm> <fnm>SJ</fnm></firstauthor>, Ferguson E, Duffy A, <I>et al</I>.. Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study. <I><title>BMJ</title></I> <date>2012</date>;<b><volume-nr>344</volume-nr></b>:<first-page>e2838</first-page>.</other-ref></bib> </p> <sec id="s1"><st>Context</st> <p>Induction of labour can be utilised to intervene in a pregnancy when the risks of ongoing pregnancy outweigh that of intervention. Elective induction of labour is labour induction without a clear medical or obstetric indication. It is widely believed to increase caesarean delivery, posing unnecessary risks to mother and fetus.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> However, little objective information supports this conclusion, and a meta-analysis of randomised trials<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref> found that elective induction decreased caesarean delivery compared to expectant management (ie, allowing the pregnancy to progress, leading to delivery at a later gestational age).</p> <p>While many past observational studies<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> have found higher risk of adverse outcomes with elective induction, these studies have all had a...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Caughey, A. B.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/ebmed-2012-100862</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;ebmed-2012-100862</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[EBM Aetiology, Epidemiologic studies, Hypertension, Pregnancy]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Elective induction of labour is associated with decreased perinatal mortality and lower odds of caesarean section at 40 and 41 weeks]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Aetiology</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>117</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>118</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/120?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Correction]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/120?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec id="s1">
<p>Ballard C, Corbett A. Randomised controlled trial: A small proportion of people with dementia and neuropsychiatric symptoms experience clinically significant worsening when antidepressants are discontinued. <I>Evid Based Med</I> 2013;18:27&ndash;28. The following Acknowledgement statement was omitted from the original article: "The authors thank the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London for supporting the work for this manuscript. This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health."</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2012-100735corr1</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2012-100735corr1</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Correction]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Correction</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>120</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>120</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/120-a?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Milk, chocolate and Nobel prizes: potential role of lactose intolerance and chromosome 2]]></title>
<link>http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/3/120-a?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <sec> <p>Two recent articles have demonstrated a strong positive correlation between population-level consumption of either chocolate<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> or milk<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> and the incidence rate of Nobel prizes. Messerli<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> proposed the positive effect of chocolate flavonoids on cognitive functioning<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref> as the underlying biological mechanism. Extending Messerli's<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> work, Laithwaite and Fuller<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> reported a significant correlation between per capita milk consumption and Nobel prizes. Similar to flavonoids, vitamin D has been linked to enhanced cognitive functioning<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R4">4</cross-ref> and Laithwaite and Fuller hypothesise that vitamin D in milk may be key to winning Nobel prizes.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref></p> <p>Interestingly, some &lsquo;low Nobel prize&rsquo; countries (eg, China and Japan) with low milk consumption have a high prevalence of adult lactose intolerance, whereas in &lsquo;high Nobel prize&rsquo; countries (eg, Sweden, Denmark, UK) this is rare. As such, we feel that the milk consumption hypothesis (either...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Loney, T., Nagelkerke, N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-15T03:11:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/eb-2013-101288</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:ebmed;eb-2013-101288</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Milk, chocolate and Nobel prizes: potential role of lactose intolerance and chromosome 2]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>PostScript</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>120</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>120</prism:endingPage>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>