No abstract

This review elaborates on the accuracy and feasibility of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling, i.e., offering self-sampling of (cervico-)vaginal cell material by women themselves in nonclinical settings for high-risk HPV (hrHPV) detection in the laboratory, for cervical screening. To that end a bibliographic database search (PubMed) was performed to identify studies (published between January 1992 and January 2012) that compared clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self-sampled material with that of cytology or HPV testing on clinician-taken samples, and studies comparing response to offering HPV self-sampling with a recall invitation. Overall, hrHPV testing on self-samples appeared to be at least as, if not more, sensitive for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN21) as cytology on clinician-obtained cervical samples, though often less specific. In most studies, hrHPV testing on self-and clinician-sampled specimens is similarly accurate with respect to CIN21 detection. Variations in clinical performance likely reflect the use of different combinations of collection devices and HPV tests. Because it is known that underscreened women are at increased risk of cervical cancer, targeting non-attendees of the screening program could improve the effectiveness of cervical screening. In developed countries offering self-sampling has shown to be superior to a recall invitation for cytology in re-attracting original non-attendees into the screening program. Additionally, self-testing has shown to facilitate access to cervical screening for women in low resource areas. This updated review of the literature suggests that HPV self-sampling could be an additional strategy that can improve screening performance compared to current cytology-based call-recall programs.For years, cervical scrapes taken by clinicians constituted the basis for cervical cancer screening via either conventional or liquid-based cytology (LBC).1,2 However, several randomized controlled trials have shown that, given its higher sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2þ), high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing on clinician-taken cervical scrapes provides a better protection against cervical cancer than cytology.3-5 Therefore, HPV testing is likely to become an important primary cervical screening tool in the near future.Another item that got much attention in the last couple of years involves the use of self-collected (cervico-) vaginal material as an alternative for clinician-collected cervical scrapes for screening. Swabs, brushes, tampons or lavage devices have been used as self-collection devices. Surveys in which participants were asked for collection preference have shown that women prefer self-collection over clinician-collection, with time and place of sampling, privacy and ease of sampling being the mentioned advantages of self-sampling. Only a small number of women were reluctant because they either did not understand the provided instructions or were insecure if they had used the s...

When compared to traditional learning, e-learning may make little or no difference in patient outcomes or health professionals' behaviours, skills or knowledge. Even if e-learning could be more successful than traditional learning in particular medical education settings, general claims of it as inherently more effective than traditional learning may be misleading.

Population-based screening for early detection and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) and precursor lesions, using evidence-based methods, can be effective in populations with a significant burden of the disease provided the services are of high quality. Multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidelines for quality assurance in CRC screening and diagnosis have been developed by experts in a project co-financed by the European Union. The 450-page guidelines were published in book format by the European Commission in 2010.They include 10 chapters and over 250 recommendations, individually graded according to the strength of the recommendation and the supporting evidence. Adoption of the recommendations can improve and maintain the quality and effectiveness of an entire screening process, including identification and invitation of the target population, diagnosis and management of the disease and appropriate surveillance in people with detected lesions. To make the principles, recommendations and standards in the guidelines known to a wider professional and scientific community and to facilitate their use in the scientific literature, the original content is presented in journal format in an open-access Supplement of Endoscopy. The editors have prepared the present overview to inform readers of the comprehensive scope and content of the guidelines. IntroductionAccording to recent estimates by the International Agency for Research on Cancer [1], colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer in Europe with 432 000 new cases reported annually in men and women combined. It is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in Europe with 212 000 deaths reported in 2008.Worldwide, CRC ranks third in incidence and fourth in mortality with an estimated 1.2 million cases and 0.6 million deaths annually. In the 27 Member States of the European Union (EU), CRC ranks first in incidence and second in mortality, with approximately 334000 new cases and 149000 deaths estimated in 2008.Even in those Member States in the lower range for age-standardized rates of CRC, the burden of disease is significantly greater when compared with many other HHS Public Access Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript regions of the world (see reference [1]). CRC is therefore an important health problem across the EU.Screening can be effective in cancer control in populations with a significant burden of CRC, provided the services are of high quality [2]. The aim of CRC screening is to lower the burden of cancer in the population by discovering disease in its early, latent stages [3]. Evidence-based methods permit treatment that is more effective than if disease is diagnosed later when symptoms have occurred. Early treatment of invasive lesions, for example by endoscopic resection of early CRC, can also be less detrimental for quality of life. The endoscopic removal of pre-malignant lesions also reduces the incidence of CRC by avoiding the progression to cancer. Randomized trials in people of average risk invite...

Recent advances in telecommunication technologies have boosted the possibility to deliver rehabilitation via the internet (i.e. telerehabilitation). Several studies have shown that telerehabilitation is effective to improve clinical outcomes in disabling conditions. The aim of this review was to determine whether telerehabilitation was more effective than other modes of delivering rehabilitation to regain motor function, in different populations of patients.We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library retrieving 2360 records. Twelve studies were included involving different populations (i.e. neurological, total knee arthroplasty (TKA), cardiac) of patients. Inconclusive finding were found on the effect of telerehabilitation for neurological patients (SMD = 0.08, CI 95% = -0.13, 0.29), while both for cardiac (SMD = 0.24, CI 95% = 0.04, 0.43) and TKA patients (Timed Up and Go test: MD = -5.17, CI 95% = -9.79, -0.55) the results were in favour of telerehabilitation.Conclusive evidence on the efficacy of telerehabilitation for treatment of motor function, regardless of pathology, was not reached. Nevertheless, a strong positive effect was found for patients following orthopaedic surgery, suggesting that the increased intensity provided by telerehabilitation is a promising option to be offered to patients. More and higher quality research is needed in this field especially with neurological patients.