Available evidence suggests that screening for some diseases in community pharmacies is feasible. More studies are needed to compare effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacy-based screening with screening by other providers. Strategies to improve screening participants' adherence to pharmacist advice also need to be explored. This systematic review will help to inform future studies wishing to develop community pharmacy-based screening interventions.

No abstract

 There is a paucity of epidemiological data on chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in women particularly beyond the reproductive age. CPP, like other chronic pain conditions, may involve biological, psychological and social factors but attention to date has focussed on biological factors in disease aetiology.What does this study add: -Heightened somatic awareness may be more strongly associated with CPP in women of post-reproductive years compared to women of reproductive years. 2 Two subgroups of CPP cases can be differentiated by the absence/presence of psychosocial distress suggesting that stratified management approach may be more efficient. 3 AbstractBackground: Epidemiological studies on chronic pelvic pain (CPP) have focused on women

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is common in women of reproductive age and has a significant impact on quality of life, work efficiency and healthcare utilization. CPP can be a manifestation of many different, often multifactorial conditions, and in the absence of an identified cause, the management can be particularly challenging. High quality epidemiological studies would improve the understanding of CPP and identify risk factors which may be targeted for the development of appropriate management strategies. This review focuses on what is known about the prevalence, risk factors, individual and societal burden of CPP and outlines important management strategies.

Strategies to identify and mitigate publication bias and outcome reporting bias are frequently adopted in systematic reviews of clinical interventions but it is not clear how often these are applied in systematic reviews relating to quantitative health services and delivery research (HSDR). We examined whether these biases are mentioned and/or otherwise assessed in HSDR systematic reviews, and evaluated associating factors to inform future practice. We randomly selected 200 quantitative HSDR systematic reviews published in the English language from 2007-2017 from the Health Systems Evidence database (www.healthsystemsevidence.org). We extracted data on factors that may influence whether or not authors mention and/or assess publication bias or outcome reporting bias. We found that 43% (n = 85) of the reviews mentioned publication bias and 10% (n = 19) formally assessed it. Outcome reporting bias was mentioned and assessed in 17% (n = 34) of all the systematic reviews. Insufficient number of studies, heterogeneity and lack of pre-registered protocols were the most commonly reported impediments to assessing the biases. In multivariable logistic regression models, both mentioning and formal assessment of publication bias were associated with: inclusion of a meta-analysis; being a review of intervention rather than association studies; higher journal impact factor, and; reporting the use of systematic review guidelines. Assessment of outcome reporting bias was associated with: being an intervention review; authors reporting the use of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE), and; inclusion of only controlled trials. Publication bias and outcome reporting bias are infrequently assessed in HSDR systematic reviews. This may reflect the inherent heterogeneity of HSDR evidence and different methodological approaches to synthesising the evidence, lack of awareness of such biases, limits of current tools and lack of pre-registered study protocols for assessing such biases. Strategies to help raise awareness of the biases, and methods to