Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding are serious and potentially fatal complications of surgical procedures. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis decreases the risk of VTE but increases the risk of major post-operative bleeding. The decision to use pharmacologic prophylaxis therefore represents a trade-off that critically depends on the incidence of VTE and bleeding in the absence of prophylaxis. These baseline risks vary widely between procedures, but their magnitude is uncertain. Systematic reviews addressing baseline risks are scarce, needed, and require innovations in methodology. Indeed, systematic summaries of these baseline risk estimates exist neither in general nor gynecologic surgery. We will fill this knowledge gap by performing a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the procedure-specific and patient risk factor stratified risk estimates in general and gynecologic surgeries. Methods We will perform comprehensive literature searches for observational studies in general and gynecologic surgery reporting symptomatic VTE or bleeding estimates. Pairs of methodologically trained reviewers will independently assess the studies for eligibility, evaluate the risk of bias by using an instrument developed for this review, and extract data. We will perform meta-analyses and modeling studies to adjust the reported risk estimates for the use of thromboprophylaxis and length of follow up. We will derive the estimates of risk from the median estimates of studies rated at the lowest risk of bias. The primary outcomes are the risk estimates of symptomatic VTE and major bleeding at 4 weeks post-operatively for each procedure stratified by patient risk factors. We will apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate evidence certainty. Discussion This series of systematic reviews, modeling studies, and meta-analyses will inform clinicians and patients regarding the trade-off between VTE prevention and bleeding in general and gynecologic surgeries. Our work advances the standards in systematic reviews of surgical complications, including assessment of risk of bias, criteria for arriving at the best estimates of risk (including modeling of the timing of events and dealing with suboptimal data reporting), dealing with subgroups at higher and lower risk of bias, and use of the GRADE approach. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42021234119

Introduction and hypothesis Recommendations for preventing and diagnosing recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI) tend to vary between clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) because of low-quality scientific evidence, potentially leading to practice variation and suboptimal care. We assessed the quality of existing CPGs for recurrent UTI. Methods A systematic search was performed from January 2000 to June 2021 in PubMed and EMBASE for CPGs on recurrent UTI prevention or hospital diagnostics in Dutch, English, and Spanish. Each CPG was assessed by four appraisers in a multidisciplinary review team, using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Results We identified and assessed eight CPGs published between 2013 and 2021. The scope and purpose (mean and standard deviation: 67.3 ± 21.8) and clarity of presentation (74.8 ± 17.6) domains scored highly. However, issues with methods, patient participation, conflict of interests, and facilitators and barriers were common and resulted in lower scores for the rigour of development (56.9 ± 25.9), applicability (19.6 ± 23.4), stakeholder involvement (50.4 ± 24.6), and editorial independence (62.1 ± 23.1) domains. Overall, two CPGs were recommended, three were recommended with modifications, and three were not recommended. Conclusions Significant room for improvement exists in the quality of CPGs for recurrent UTI, with most displaying serious limitations in the stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, and applicability domains. These aspects must be improved to decrease diagnostic and therapeutic uncertainty. Developers could benefit from using checklists and following guidelines when developing de novo CPGs.

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) has both advantages (e.g. reduction in morbidity and mortality) and disadvantages (e.g. false positives and distress). A systematic review was therefore performed to improve our understanding of how false-positive CRC screening results affect patients psychologically (and to make recommendations for primary care). The PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were searched in October 2014 and supplemented in December 2016 to identify studies on the psychological impact of false-positive CRC screening. Original studies were eligible when they assessed psychological impact in a screening setting, provided they also included false-positive CRC screening results. Two authors independently assessed 2,367 available manuscripts and included seven. Heterogeneity in their outcome measures meant that data could not be pooled. Two studies showed that a false-positive CRC screening result caused some moderate psychological distress shortly before and after colonoscopy. The remaining five studies illustrated that the psychological distress of patients with true-positive and false-positive CRC screening results was comparable. We conclude that a false-positive CRC screening result may cause some moderate psychological distress, especially just before or after colonoscopy. We recommend that general practitioners mention this when discussing CRC screening with patients and monitor those with a false-positive outcome for psychological distress.