Revisiting the impact of race/ethnicity in endometriosis.

Unlabelled: Endometriosis is a chronic, multisystemic disease often presenting with significant phenotypic variation amongst patients. The impact of race/ethnicity on the prevalence of endometriosis, as well as disease presentation, is a question of interest which has been explored for the last century. This narrative review explores the historical perspective of endometriosis and race/ethnicity as well as the evidence available to date.

Evaluation of Opioid Prescribing Patterns and Use Following Hysterectomy for Benign Indication: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Objectives: To evaluate surgeon opioid prescribing patterns for patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign indication, as well as patient use of postoperative medications and satisfaction with postoperative pain management.

Methods: Patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications at Kingston Health Sciences Centre were invited to participate in a telephone survey 2 weeks post-surgery to review their analgesia use and pain management. Patient demographics, medical history, intraoperative surgical details, and postoperative prescriptions were gathered through patient record review.

Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update.

Purpose: Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines.

A systematic review of comparisons between protocols or registrations and full reports in primary biomedical research.

Background: Prospective study protocols and registrations can play a significant role in reducing incomplete or selective reporting of primary biomedical research, because they are pre-specified blueprints which are available for the evaluation of, and comparison with, full reports. However, inconsistencies between protocols or registrations and full reports have been frequently documented. In this systematic review, which forms part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical, we aimed to survey the existing evidence of inconsistencies between protocols or registrations (i.

A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research.

Background: Evidence shows that research abstracts are commonly inconsistent with their corresponding full reports, and may mislead readers. In this scoping review, which is part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical research, we summarized the evidence from systematic reviews and surveys, to investigate the current state of inconsistent abstract reporting, and to evaluate factors associated with improved reporting by comparing abstracts and their full reports.

Methods: We searched EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and CINAHL from January 1st 1996 to September 30th 2016 to retrieve eligible systematic reviews and surveys.