Early childhood caries in children living in Xiamen city was strongly associated with eating habits, family- and childcare-related factors and tooth-brushing. The ECC-high-risk group is children in rural private childcare facilities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe would like to acknowledge the contributions of the following people who contributed by reviewing and commenting on earlier versions of this paper:

PurposeThis study aims to estimate the prevalence of sexual dysfunction in men with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) by conducting a meta-analysis.MethodsRelevant publications were searched using PubMed, Embase, CBM, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP and Wanfang databases up to August 2015. Studies that reported the prevalence of erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation and total sexual dysfunction in men with CP/CPPS were included.ResultsA total of 24 studies involving 11,189 men were included. Overall prevalence of sexual dysfunction in men with CP/CPPS was 0.62 (95 % CI 0.48–0.75), while the prevalence of erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation was 0.29 (95 % CI 0.24–0.33) and 0.40 (95 % CI 0.30–0.50), respectively. From 1999 to 2010, the prevalence of sexual dysfunction, erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation was 0.65 (95 % CI 0.45–0.83), 0.27 (95 % CI 0.22–0.33) and 0.41 (95 % CI 0.27–0.55), respectively. From 2011 to 2014, the prevalence of sexual dysfunction, erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation was 0.50 (95 % CI 0.22–0.75), 0.35 (95 % CI 0.29– 0.40) and 0.39 (95 % CI 0.37–0.41), respectively.ConclusionThe prevalence of sexual dysfunction in men with CP/CPPS was high, even though overall sexual dysfunction demonstrated a slightly decreasing trend. Furthermore, erectile dysfunction prevalence rate had an increasing trend in recent years. More prospective studies are needed to evaluate sexual dysfunction improvement with better management of CP/CPPS.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00345-015-1720-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Estradiol-only therapy carries no risk for breast cancer, while the breast cancer risk varies according to the type of progestogen. Estradiol therapy combined with medroxyprogesterone, norethisterone and levonorgestrel related to an increased risk of breast cancer, estradiol therapy combined with dydrogesterone and progesterone carries no risk. The breast cancer risk rise progressively by prolonged use, furthermore, comparing to sequential therapy, continuous therapy carries a higher risk.

Objective: There is a lack of evidence on the usage of the quality assessment toolthe Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I). This article aimed to measure the reliability, criterion validity, and feasibility of the ROBINS-I and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).Methods: A sample of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of observational studies were selected from Medline (2013Medline ( -2017 and assessed by two reviewers using ROBINS-I and the NOS. We reported on reliability in terms of the first-order agreement coefficient (AC1) statistic. Correlation coefficient statistic was used to explore the criterion validity of the ROBINS-I. We compared the feasibility of the ROBINS-I and NOS by recording the time to complete an assessment and the instances where assessing was difficult.Results: Five systematic reviews containing 41 cohort studies were finally included.Interobserver agreement on the individual domain of the ROBINS-I as well as the NOS was substantial with a mean AC1 statistic of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.50-0.83) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.65-0.81), respectively. The criterion validity of the ROBNS-I was moderate (K = 0.52) against NOS. The time in assessing a single study by ROBINS-I varied from 7 hours initially to 3 hours compared with 30 minutes for the NOS. Both reviewers rated "bias due to departure from the intended interventions" the most time-consuming domain in the ROBINS-I, items in the NOS were equal. Conclusions:The ROBINS-I and the NOS seem to provide the same reliability but vary in applicability. The over-complicated feature of ROBINS-I may limit its usage and a simplified version is needed.