Search

Mendelian randomization (MR) is increasingly used for generating estimates of the causal impact of exposures on outcomes. Evidence suggests a causal role of excess adipose tissue (adiposity) on many health outcomes. However, this body of work has not been systematically appraised. We systematically reviewed and meta-analysed results from MR studies investigating the association between adiposity and health outcomes prior to the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic (PROSPERO: CRD42018096684). We searched Medline, EMBASE, and bioRxiv up to February 2019 and obtained data on 2,214 MR analyses from 173 included articles. 29 meta-analyses were conducted using data from 34 articles (including 66 MR analyses) and results not able to be meta-analysed were narratively synthesised. Body mass index (BMI) was the predominant exposure used and was primarily associated with an increase in investigated outcomes; the largest effect in the meta-analyses was observed for the association between BMI and polycystic ovary syndrome (estimates reflect odds ratios (OR) per standard deviation change in each adiposity measure): OR = 2.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.22–5.33. Only colorectal cancer was investigated with two exposures in the meta-analysis: BMI (OR = 1.18; 95% CI = 1.01–1.37) and waist-hip ratio (WHR; OR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.08–2.03). Broadly, results were consistent across the meta-analyses and narrative synthesis. Consistent with many observational studies, this work highlights the impact of adiposity across a broad spectrum of health outcomes, enabling targeted follow-up analyses. However, missing and incomplete data mean results should be interpreted with caution.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en.

Despite a major increase in the range and number of software offerings now available to help researchers produce evidence syntheses, there is currently no generic tool for producing figures to display and explore the risk-of-bias assessments that routinely take place as part of systematic review. However, tools such as the R programming environment and Shiny (an R package for building interactive web apps) have made it straightforward to produce new tools to help in producing evidence syntheses. We present a new tool, robvis (Risk-Of-Bias VISualization), available as an R package and web app, which facilitates rapid production of publication-quality risk-of-bias assessment figures. We present a timeline of the tool's development and its key functionality.

Background Detailed prevalence estimates of BRAFV600 mutations and BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) treatment responses in V600-mutant glioma will inform trial development. Methods Our systematic review analyzed overall prevalence of BRAFV600 mutations in glioma and BRAFi treatment response. Results Based on 13 682 patients in 182 publications, the prevalence of BRAFV600 in epithelioid glioblastoma (eGBM) was 69% [95% CI: 45–89%]; pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma (PXA): 56% [48–64%] anaplastic pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma (aPXA): 38% [23–54%], ganglioglioma (GG): 40% [33–46%], and anaplastic ganglioglioma (aGG): 46% [18–76%]. Prevalence in astroblastoma was 24% [8–43%], desmoplastic infantile astrocytoma (DIA): 16% [0–57%], subependymal giant cell astrocytoma (SEGA): 8% [0–37%], dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor (DNET): 3% [0–11%], diffuse astrocytoma (DA): 3% [0–9%], and pilocytic astrocytoma (PA): 3% [2–5%]. We reviewed 394 V600-mutant gliomas treated with BRAFi from 130 publications. One hundred and twenty-nine pediatric low-grade gliomas showed 4 (3.1%) complete response (CR); 53 (41.1%) partial response (PR); 64 (49.6%) stable disease (SD) and 8 (6.2%) progressive disease (PD). 25 pediatric high-grade gliomas showed CR; PR; SD; PD in 4 (16.0%); 10 (40.0%), 4 (16.0%); and 7 (28.0%) respectively. Thirty-nine adult low-grade gliomas showed CR; PR; SD; PD of 4 (10.3%); 17 (43.6%); 16 (41.0%) and 2 (5.1%) respectively. Ninety-seven adult high-grade gliomas showed CR; PR; SD; PD of 6 (6.2%); 31 (32.0%); 27 (27.8%); and 33 (34.0%) respectively. Conclusions BRAFV600 prevalence is highest in eGBM, PXA, aPXA, GG, aGG, and lower in astroblastoma, DIA, SEGA, DNET, DA, and PA. Our data provide the rationale for adjuvant clinical trials of BRAFi in V600-mutant glioma.

2AbstractBackgroundThere is some evidence that circulating blood lipids play a role in the development of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and dementia. These modifiable risk factors could be targeted by existing lipid-regulating agents, including statins, for dementia prevention. Here, we test the association between lipid-regulating agents and incidence of dementia and related conditions in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), an United Kingdom-based electronic health record database.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was performed using routinely collected CPRD data (January 1995 and March 2016). Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, allowing for a time-varying treatment indicator, were used to estimate the association between seven lipid-regulating drug classes (vs. no drug) and five dementia outcomes (all-cause, vascular and other dementias, and probable and possible Alzheimer’s disease).ResultsWe analyzed 1,684,564 participants with a total follow-up of 10,835,685 patient-years (median: 5.9 years (IQR:2.7-9.7)). We found little evidence that lipid-regulating agents were associated with incidence of Alzheimer’s disease (probable HR:0.98, 95%CI:0.94-1.01; possible HR:0.97, 95%CI:0.93-1.01), but there was evidence of an increased risk of all-cause (HR:1.17, 95%CI:1.14-1.19), vascular (HR:1.81, 95%CI:1.73-1.89) and other dementias (HR:1.19, 95%CI:1.15-1.24). Evidence from a number of control outcomes indicated the presence of substantial residual confounding by indication (ischaemic heart disease HR: 1.62, 95%CI: 1.59-1.64; backpain HR: 1.04, 95%CI: 1.03-1.05; and Type 2 diabetes HR: 1.50, 95%CI: 1.48-1.51).ConclusionLipid-regulating agents were not associated with reduced Alzheimer’s disease risk. There was some evidence of an increased the risk of all-cause, vascular and other dementias, likely due to residual confounding by indication.3Key messagesA large cohort of patients from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) electronic health record database was assembled to examine the association of lipid-regulating agents, such as statins, with dementia outcomes.There was little evidence that lipid-regulating agents were associated with Alzheimer’s disease, but there was some evidence for a harmful association with all-cause, vascular and other dementias. In all cases, the estimated associations were driven by the any statin subgroup, which comprised most participants in our cohort.Evidence from the control outcome analyses indicated strong residual confounding by indication, mostly likely related to vascular factors.

There is widespread concern over the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on suicide and self-harm globally, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) where the burden of these behaviours is greatest. We synthesised the evidence from the published literature on the impact of the pandemic on suicide and self-harm in LMIC. This review is nested within a living systematic review (PROSPERO ID CRD42020183326) that continuously identifies published evidence (all languages) through a comprehensive automated search of multiple databases (PubMed; Scopus; medRxiv, PsyArXiv; SocArXiv; bioRxiv; the WHO COVID-19 database; and the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset by Semantic Scholar (up to 11/2020), including data from Microsoft Academic, Elsevier, arXiv and PubMed Central.) All articles identified by the 4th August 2021 were screened. Papers reporting on data from a LMIC and presenting evidence on the impact of the pandemic on suicide or self-harm were included. Methodological quality was assessed using an appropriate tool, and a narrative synthesis presented. A total of 22 studies from LMIC were identified representing data from 12 countries. There was an absence of data from Africa, the Pacific, and the Caribbean. The reviewed studies mostly report on the early months of COVID-19 and were generally methodologically poor. Few studies directly assessed the impact of the pandemic. The most robust evidence, from time-series studies, indicate either a reduction or no change in suicide and self-harm behaviour. As LMIC continue to experience repeated waves of the virus and increased associated mortality, against a backdrop of vaccine inaccessibility and limited welfare support, continued efforts are needed to track the indirect impact of the pandemic on suicide and self-harm in these countries.

BackgroundReporting standards, such as PRISMA aim to ensure that the methods and results of systematic reviews are described in sufficient detail to allow full transparency. Flow diagrams in evidence syntheses allow the reader to rapidly understand the core procedures used in a review and examine the attrition of irrelevant records throughout the review process. Recent research suggests that use of flow diagrams in systematic reviews is poor and of low quality and called for standardised templates to facilitate better reporting in flow diagrams. The increasing options for interactivity provided by the Internet gives us an opportunity to support easy-to-use evidence synthesis tools, and here we report on the development of tools for the production of PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review flow diagrams.Methods and FindingsWe developed a free-to-use, Open Source R package and web-based Shiny app to allow users to design PRISMA flow diagrams for their own systematic reviews. Our tools allow users to produce standardised visualisations that transparently document the methods and results of a systematic review process in a variety of formats. In addition, we provide the opportunity to produce interactive, web-based flow diagrams (exported as HTML files), that allow readers to click on boxes of the diagram and navigate to further details on methods, results or data files. We provide an interactive example here;https://driscoll.ntu.ac.uk/prisma/.ConclusionsWe have developed a user-friendly suite of tools for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams for users with coding experience and, importantly, for users without prior experience in coding by making use of Shiny. These free-to-use tools will make it easier to produce clear and PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review flow diagrams. Significantly, users can also produce interactive flow diagrams for the first time, allowing readers of their reviews to smoothly and swiftly explore and navigate to further details of the methods and results of a review. We believe these tools will increase use of PRISMA flow diagrams, improve the compliance and quality of flow diagrams, and facilitate strong science communication of the methods and results of systematic reviews by making use of interactivity. We encourage the systematic review community to make use of these tools, and provide feedback to streamline and improve their usability and efficiency.

Background Cannabis has been identified as a possible risk factor in some tuberculosis (TB) outbreaks. As the most widely used (largely) illegal substance in Western countries this may be an important public health concern. We aim to systematically review the evidence on the association between cannabis use and TB (latent infection and active disease) to inform ongoing and future TB prevention and control strategies. Methods We conducted a systematic review. We searched Ovid Medline, Embase and PsycInfo, together with the World Health Organization website and Google Scholar, for all years to January 2018. Reference lists and conference abstracts were hand-searched, a forward citation search was conducted on the Web of Science, and experts were contacted. Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using an adapted version of ROBINS-I (“Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies – of Interventions”). Data were narratively synthesised. Results Of 377 records identified, 11 studies were eligible. Study designs were heterogeneous. Six studies utilised a relevant comparator group. Four of these investigated the association between cannabis use and latent TB infection; all provided some evidence of an association, although only two of these had adjusted for confounders. The remaining two comparator studies investigated the association between cannabis use and active TB disease; neither found evidence of an association after adjusting for confounding. All six studies were at “Serious” risk of bias. The five studies which did not utilise a relevant comparator group were all indicative of TB outbreaks occurring among cannabis users, but the quality of the evidence was very weak. Conclusions Evidence for an association between cannabis use and TB acquisition is weak. The topic warrants further robust primary research including the collection of consistent and accurate exposure information, including cannabis use practices, dose and frequency, and adjustment for confounders. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-7127-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did and what they found. Over the last decade, there have been many advances in systematic review methodology and terminology, which have necessitated an update to the guideline.Objectives: To develop the PRISMA 2020 statement for reporting systematic reviews.Methods: We reviewed 60 documents with reporting guidance for systematic reviews to generate suggested modifications to the PRISMA 2009 statement. We sought feedback on the suggested modifications through an online survey of 110 systematic review methodologists and journal editors. The results of the review and survey were discussed at a 21-member in-person meeting. Following the meeting, drafts of the PRISMA 2020 checklist, abstract checklist, explanation and elaboration and flow diagram were generated and refined iteratively based on feedback from co-authors and a convenience sample of 15 systematic reviewers.Results: In this statement paper, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. The checklist includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement.Conclusions: The PRISMA 2020 statement is intended to facilitate transparent, complete and accurate reporting of systematic reviews. Improved reporting should benefit users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, health care providers, patients and other stakeholders. In order to achieve this, we encourage authors, editors and peer-reviewers to adopt the guideline.

The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on the mental health of healthcare and social care workers, and its potential effect on suicidal thoughts and behaviour is of particular concern.MethodsThis systematic review identified and appraised the published literature that has reported on the impact of COVID-19 on suicidal thoughts and behaviour and self-harm amongst healthcare and social care workers worldwide up to May 31, 2021.ResultsOut of 37 potentially relevant papers identified, ten met our eligibility criteria. Our review has highlighted that the impact of COVID-19 has varied as a function of setting, working relationships, occupational roles, and psychiatric comorbidities.LimitationsThere have been no completed cohort studies comparing pre- and post-pandemic suicidal thoughts and behaviours. It is possible some papers may have been missed in the search.ConclusionsThe current quality of evidence pertaining to suicidal behaviour in healthcare workers is poor, and evidence is entirely absent for those working in social care. The clinical relevance of this work is to bring attention to what evidence exists, and to encourage, in practice, proactive approaches to interventions for improving healthcare and social care worker mental health.

ObjectiveTo determine the most effective interventions in recently detoxified, alcohol dependent patients for implementation in primary care.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials comparing two or more interventions that could be used in primary care. The population was patients with alcohol dependency diagnosed by standardised clinical tools and who became detoxified within four weeks.Data extractionOutcomes of interest were continuous abstinence from alcohol (effectiveness) and all cause dropouts (as a proxy for acceptability) at least 12 weeks after start of intervention.Results64 trials (43 interventions) were included. The median probability of abstinence across placebo arms was 25%. Compared with placebo, the only intervention associated with increased probability of abstinence and moderate certainty evidence was acamprosate (odds ratio 1.86, 95% confidence interval 1.49 to 2.33, corresponding to an absolute probability of 38%). Of the 62 included trials that reported all cause dropouts, interventions associated with a reduced number of dropouts compared with placebo (probability 50%) and moderate certainty of evidence were acamprosate (0.73, 0.62 to 0.86; 42%), naltrexone (0.70, 0.50 to 0.98; 41%), and acamprosate-naltrexone (0.30, 0.13 to 0.67; 17%). Acamprosate was the only intervention associated with moderate confidence in the evidence of effectiveness and acceptability up to 12 months. It is uncertain whether other interventions can help maintain abstinence and reduce dropouts because of low confidence in the evidence.ConclusionsEvidence is lacking for benefit from interventions that could be implemented in primary care settings for alcohol abstinence, other than for acamprosate. More evidence from high quality randomised controlled trials is needed, as are strategies using combined interventions (combinations of drug interventions or drug and psychosocial interventions) to improve treatment of alcohol dependency in primary care.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016049779.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused widespread morbidity and mortality as well as disruption to people’s lives and livelihoods around the world; this has occurred as a result of both infection with the virus itself and the health protection measures taken to curb its spread. There are concerns that rates of suicide, suicidal behaviours and self-harm may rise during and in the aftermath of the pandemic. Given the likely rapidly expanding research evidence base on the pandemic’s impact on rates of suicide, suicidal behaviours and self-harm and emerging evidence about how best to mitigate such effects, it is important that the best available knowledge is made readily available to policymakers, public health specialists and clinicians as soon as is possible. To facilitate this, we plan to undertake a living systematic review focusing on suicide prevention in relation to COVID-19. Method: Regular automated searches will feed into a web-based screening system which will also host the data extraction form for included articles. Our eligibility criteria are wide and include aspects of incidence and prevalence of suicidal behaviour, effects of exposures and effects of interventions in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, with minimal restrictions on the types of study design to be included. The outcomes assessed will be death by suicide; self-harm or attempted suicide (including hospital attendance and/or admission for these reasons); and suicidal thoughts/ideation. There will be no restriction on study type, except for single case reports. There will be no restriction on language of publication. The review will be updated at three-monthly intervals if a sufficient volume of new evidence justifies doing so. Conclusions: Our living review will provide a regular synthesis of the most up-to-date research evidence to guide public health and clinical policy to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on suicide. Protocol registration: PROSPERO CRD42020183326 01/05/2020

Hematospermia is an uncommon presentation of prostate cancer. Following the introduction of MRI for patients with hematospermia we evaluated its use and effect on prostate biopsy and cancer detection rates.Analysis of patients attending our outpatient department over 2 years was undertaken. Diagnostic workup included digital rectal examination and PSA. Those with abnormal findings or persisting symptoms were offered prostate biopsy. In the second year MRI became available for patients with hematospermia. Abnormal MRI or persisting symptoms were offered biopsy. We compared the frequency of prostate biopsy and cancer detection in patients undergoing MRI and those not having imaging.Forty-seven patients were referred with hematospermia. Nineteen patients did not undergo MRI; four received prostate biopsy with one adenocarcinoma found. Twenty-four patients had an MRI with 17 biopsies undertaken. Three biopsies revealed adenocarcinoma. In the MRI group 71% of patients underwent prostate biopsy but only 21% from the non-MRI group (p0.05). Prostate cancer detection rate in the MRI group was 18% whilst in the non-MRI group was 25% (p = 0.7).Our findings indicate that caution should be used with MRI as it can lead to an increase in prostate biopsy with no change in cancer detection rate.

Background BRAF inhibitor treatment with vemurafenib and dabrafenib have produced significant increases in median overall survival for BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma patients and are in wide clinical use. BRAF inhibitors have also been used in an ad hoc fashion in BRAF V600 mutation-positive glioma in a number of glioma subtypes with varying prognoses. Methods An electronic search was performed on MEDLINE and Embase on February 1, 2019 to identify studies of any design that reported the outcome of patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive glioma treated with BRAF inhibitors. Data was collected for demographic information, tumour information (type and grading), BRAF mutation type, prior treatment regimens, type of BRAF inhibitor, dose and duration of treatment, best objective response, progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), glioma specific symptomatic relief and adverse events. Preliminary Results Seventy-nine case reports, case series and single arm cohort studies with a total of 286 patients were included. Duration of treatment was available for 197 patients and varied from 0.1 to 54 months, with 104 patients still undergoing treatment at the time of publication. Progression occurred in 158 patients (including both low-grade and high-grade glioma) at between 0.805 and 36 months following the start of treatment. 34 people died, at between 0.329 and 40.1 months following the start of treatment. Conclusions Our systematic review shows varying clinical effectiveness of BRAF inhibitors in BRAF V600 mutation-positive glioma depending on low-grade or high-grade glioma. This evidence may inform future trials of BRAF inhibitors for glioma patients.

Public health and health service interventions are typically complex: they are multifaceted, with impacts at multiple levels and on multiple stakeholders. Systematic reviews evaluating the effects of complex health interventions can be challenging to conduct. This paper is part of a special series of papers considering these challenges particularly in the context of WHO guideline development. We outline established and innovative methods for synthesising quantitative evidence within a systematic review of a complex intervention, including considerations of the complexity of the system into which the intervention is introduced. We describe methods in three broad areas: non-quantitative approaches, including tabulation, narrative and graphical approaches; standard meta-analysis methods, including meta-regression to investigate study-level moderators of effect; and advanced synthesis methods, in which models allow exploration of intervention components, investigation of both moderators and mediators, examination of mechanisms, and exploration of complexities of the system. We offer guidance on the choice of approach that might be taken by people collating evidence in support of guideline development, and emphasise that the appropriate methods will depend on the purpose of the synthesis, the similarity of the studies included in the review, the level of detail available from the studies, the nature of the results reported in the studies, the expertise of the synthesis team and the resources available.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused morbidity and mortality, as well as, widespread disruption to people’s lives and livelihoods around the world. Given the health and economic threats posed by the pandemic to the global community, there are concerns that rates of suicide and suicidal behaviour may rise during and in its aftermath. Our living systematic review (LSR) focuses on suicide prevention in relation to COVID-19, with this iteration synthesising relevant evidence up to June 7th 2020. Method: Automated daily searches feed into a web-based database with screening and data extraction functionalities. Eligibility criteria include incidence/prevalence of suicidal behaviour, exposure-outcome relationships and effects of interventions in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Outcomes of interest are suicide, self-harm or attempted suicide and suicidal thoughts. No restrictions are placed on language or study type, except for single-person case reports. Results: Searches identified 2070 articles, 29 (28 studies) met our inclusion criteria, of which 14 articles were research letters or pre-prints awaiting peer review. All articles reported observational data: 12 cross-sectional; eight case series; five modelling; and three service utilisation studies. No studies reported on changes in rates of suicidal behaviour. Case series were largely drawn from news reporting in low/middle income countries and factors associated with suicide included fear of infection, social isolation and economic concerns. Conclusions: A marked improvement in the quality of design, methods, and reporting in future studies is needed. There is thus far no clear evidence of an increase in suicide, self-harm, suicidal behaviour, or suicidal thoughts associated with the pandemic. However, suicide data are challenging to collect in real time and economic effects are evolving. Our LSR will provide a regular synthesis of the most up-to-date research evidence to guide public health and clinical policy to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on suicide. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020183326 01/05/2020

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are widely accepted as the gold standard in the assessment of health interventions. However, evidence from RCTs is often unavailable. Randomized clinical trials may also be impractical, for example when the outcome of interest is so rare or so long term that appropriately sized studies would be too expensive. In addition, RCTs require clinical equipoise, and withholding established treatments may be considered unethical even if evidence for the effects of these treatments is limited. Finally, RCTs may be underway but not ready for reporting for some years.

Twenty years after it was introduced, robotic surgery has become more commonplace in urology – we examine its current uses and controversies

Purpose The purpose of the study is to assess the validity of codes or algorithms used to identify dementia in UK electronic health record (EHR) primary care and hospitalisation databases. Methods Relevant studies were identified by searching the MEDLINE/EMBASE databases from inception to June 2018, hand‐searching reference lists, and consulting experts. The search strategy included synonyms for “Dementia”, “Europe”, and “EHR”. Studies were included if they validated dementia diagnoses in UK primary care or hospitalisation databases, irrespective of validation method used. The Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies‐2 (QUADAS‐2) tool was used to assess risk of bias. Results From 1469 unique records, 14 relevant studies were included. Thirteen validated individual diagnoses against a reference standard, reporting high estimates of validity. Most reported only the positive predictive value (PPV), with estimates ranging between 0.09 and 1.0 and 0.62 and 0.85 in primary care and hospitalisation databases, respectively. One study performed a rate comparison, indicating good generalisability of dementia diagnoses in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database to the UK population. Studies were of low methodological quality. As studies were not comparable, no summary validity estimates were produced. Conclusion While heterogenous across studies, reported validity estimates were generally high. However, the credibility of these estimates is limited by the methodological quality of studies, primarily resulting from insufficient blinding of researchers interpreting the reference test. Inadequate reporting, particularly of the specific codes validated, hindered comparison of estimates across studies. Future validation studies should make use of more robust reference tests, follow established reporting guidelines, and calculate all measures of validity.

They highlight the use of penile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with artificially induced erection in aiding diagnosis of a penile lesion that was unapparent on clinical examination. Just prior to their article publication, we described a similar case of epithe-lioid hemangioma with painful erec -tions and sleep deprivation.

Testicular cancer is the commonest malignancy in young men. Improvements in survival rates have led to campaigns to raise awareness in at-risk men. We assessed the changing size of testicular tumours given the public health initiatives promoting testicular self-examination (TSE).Retrospective analysis of men (≥16 years) undergoing orchidectomy for testicular cancer at our institution over two time periods (1975-85 and 2007-12) were identified using our cancer registry. Histopathology reports were used to record testicular tumour size as the maximum measured dimension. Significance was indicated by P0.05.Of 305 orchidectomies performed, 215 had histopathology reports available. Median age was 34 years (16-75 years). Mean tumour size was 7.2 cm in 1975-85 and 4.1 cm in 2007-12 showing a significant reduction (P = 0.02). Significant reduction was seen in all age groups except60 years. Furthermore there was a significant increase in proportion of men presenting in the youngest age group (16-29 years) in the 2007-12 cohort (43 versus 29%, P = 0.02).The trend in reduction of tumour size at presentation and increased proportion of younger men presenting with testicular cancer supports an increased awareness. Promotion of TSE and public education should remain important initiatives given the increasing incidence of testicular cancer. Awareness still needs addressing in older men.

A 61-year-old man with recurrent rectal carcinoma was referred to the urology clinic with two penile lesions. These had negatively affected his quality of life and he underwent a radical circumcision and proximal glansectomy with reconstruction. This case report examines the clinical presentation and surgical treatment of rectal carcinoma metastasising to the penis.