Study question. What is the optimal management of women with premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) based on the best available evidence in the literature?Study design, size, duration. This guideline was produced by a multidisciplinary group of experts in the field using the methodology of the Manual for ESHRE Guideline Development, including a thorough systematic search of the literature, quality assessment of the included papers up to September 2014 and consensus within the guideline group on all recommendations.The GDG included a patient representative with POI. After finalization of the draft, the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) members and professional organizations were asked to review the guideline.Main results и the role of chance. The guideline development group (GDG) formulated 99 recommendations answering 31 key questions on the diagnosis and treatment of women with POI. The guideline provides 17 recommendations on diagnosis и assessment of POI and 46 recommendations on the different sequelae of POI and their consequences for monitoring и treatment. Furthermore, 24 recommendations were formulated on hormone replacement therapy in women with POI, and two on alternative и complementary treatment. A chapter on puberty induction resulted in five recommendations.Limitations, reasons for caution. The main limitation of the guideline is that, due to the lack of data, many of the recommendations are based on expert opinion or indirect evidence from studies on post-menopausal women or women with Turner Syndrome.Wider implications of the findings. Despite the limitations, the guideline group is confident that this document will be able to guide health care professionals in providing the best practice for managing women with POI given current evidence. Furthermore, the guideline group has formulated research recommendations on the gaps in knowledge identified in the literature searches, in an attempt to stimulate research on the key issues in POI.

1031analysis. The response to a single mailing of a questionnaire to participants (over 80%) was good: almost all participants expressed the view that participation had been valuable, had provided new information or ideas, or both, and had provided an opportunity to establish valuable new scientific contacts. The response to those questions requiring more objective replies was also encouraging. The 150/o-that is, at the same level as many of the better quality specialist journals. The peak time for an article to be cited in journals, however, occurs two years after publication, whereas for the foundation's publications this figure is five years and the period of frequent citation is much longer than for journals. Direct comparison of peak rates of citation improves the ranking of the foundation's publications by more than 200 places and puts them well within the top 10% of all scientific publications. This high position has been achieved despite several factors that would tend to limit the number of citations, including the fact that not all papers contain new data, techniques are rarely described in detail (these publications commonly attract the highest citation rates), and the policy of some journals excludes references to symposium volumes. The other observation worthy of comment is the impact factor of 0 596 in the year of publication (the immediacy index), which would place the foundation's volumes 276th out of more than 4000 publications. This is a strikingly high figure considering that journals are distributed on publication to subscribers whereas books have to be promoted and sold and thus take rather longer to reach their readers. These observations indicate that symposium volumes are cited early, often, and over a substantial period.These data clearly show that small, carefully organised multidisciplinary meetings can make a positive contribution to scientific research and that they are of value to the participants and the scientific community at large. Performance evaluation of the processes of science is difficult and controversial. Nevertheless, both the outcome and the processes of research, including evaluation of scientific meetings, can be assessed systematically, as we have shown. It is essential that the scientific community should be prepared to take on the responsibility of measuring research performance to justify the continuing commitment of public and private funds to research. An outbreak of scabies occurred in a community hospital serving a population of about 20 000 in South Devon. The inpatient accommodation was separate men's and women's wards each with seven beds on the ground floor and eight further beds on the first floor. The hospital had outpatient facilities and an operating theatre. Staff were drawn from a wide geographical area and at the time of the outbreak there were 17 nurses, 13 nursing auxiliaries, and 13 other employees.

No abstract

No abstract