The researchers surveyed women ages 25 and older about their demographics, their knowledge about heart disease (including their awareness of heart disease as the leading cause of death for women), perceived risk factors and prevention strategies, their sources of information about heart disease, preventive actions taken in the last year and barriers to prevention. Findings were also compared to surveys on these topics conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2006 to see how the responses have changed.

Among the results, 54% of respondents correctly identified heart disease/heart attack as the leading cause of death among women. However,  a disparity exists in this knowledge. Although awareness that heart disease/heart attack is the leading cause of death has doubled in white and Hispanic women and tripled among African American women since 1997, African American, Hispanic, and Asian women are still significantly less likely to be aware of this fact than white women.

Knowledge of heart attack warning signs had not increased significantly from the 1997 findings, with 56% of women correctly listing chest pain and neck, shoulder, and arm pain, 29% correctly identifying shortness of breath, and 17%, 15%, and 7% recognizing chest tightness, nausea, and fatigue, respectively. The authors also found that only 53% of women said they would call 911 if they were having heart attack symptoms; it’s usually recommended that people experiencing heart attack symptoms call 911 right away, even if they’re uncertain of whether they are really experiencing a heart attack.

The authors also noted that many women cited beliefs about effective methods of preventing heart disease that are not currently supported by the evidence, such as use of multivitamins (69%), antioxidants (70%), and special vitamins (58%, such as vitamin A, C, or E). 19% of women still reported a belief that hormone therapy was a useful preventive method, although this has declined from the 47% who held this belief in 1997 prior to the 2002 early halt to the Women’s Health Initiative trial and the accompanying warning that postmenopausal hormone therapy could actually increase cardiovascular risk.

Women reported numerous barriers to living a heart healthy lifestyle, including family obligations/caregiving (reported by 51% of respondents), confusion in the media about what they should be doing (42%), a belief that some higher power determines their health (37%), a lack of confidence in their ability to successfully change their behavior (33%), and a lack of money or health insurance (32%), among others less frequently reported. Lack of clear communication from health care providers (19%) and language barriers (8%) were also cited as concerns.

Emergency contraception pills (EC) currently available in the U.S.  are intended to be taken within 72 hours (3 days) of unprotected intercourse or contraceptive failure.  The drug new drug, ellaOne (ulipristal acetate), can be taken within 120 hours (5 days), providing a longer period in which to prevent pregnancy. [It's worth noting here that women have long been advised that existing EC options can also be taken up to 5 days after intercourse, although that's not the "official" approved recommendation on the drug inserts].

Anti-choice groups such as the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists argue that the pill could cause abortions and be an OTC abortion pill in the U.S., using a definition of “pregnancy” that includes a non-implanted fertilized egg, a definition that is generally not medically or scientifically accepted. These arguments were also presented during debate over the approval of Plan B.

The Lancet study compared ulipristal acetate (30 mg) with levonorgestrel (1.5 mg, the drug in Plan B) among adult women in the US and UK seeking emergency contraception within 120 hours of unprotected intercourse.

The women were followed for pregnancy outcomes, and both drugs significantly reduced the expected pregnancy rate, with the outcomes demonstrating that ulipristal was not inferior to levonorgestrel at preventing pregnancy.

The researchers also looked at rates of pregnancy among those 203 women who received one of the drugs 72-120 hours after unprotected intercourse. They found reduced rates of pregnancy: 0 in the ulipristal group, and 3 pregnancies in the levonorgestrel group, a statistically greater reduction in the ulipristal group (although a couple of changes either way might make a big difference in this result).

The second study, in Obstetrics and Gynecology, also looked at efficacy of ulipristal acetate over various time periods, up to 120 hours, and seemed to demonstrate continuing efficacy beyond 72 hours.

Both studies were funded by the company that owns ulipristal acetate.

A librarian note: searching PubMed for ulipristal acetate only returns a few citations; a search for “CDB 2914″[Substance Name] OR “CDB-2914″ OR “ulipristal acetate” OR “ellaone” is more comprehensive.

Researchers from UC Davis conducted a survey of 1,278 16-29 year old women seeking care in five California family planning clinics in 2008-2009. The participating women were Hispanic (30%), Black (28%), White (22%), Multiracial (7%) and “Asian/other” (13%). Pregnancy coercion was defined as being told not to use birth control by a partner, threatened with physical harm if they did not agree to get pregnant, being forced or pressured to become pregnant, having hidden birth control because of fear that the partner would become upset, or being told that the partner would have a baby with someone else or leave if they did not become pregnant.

Birth control sabotage was defined as having a partner take off a condom while having sex, put holes in a condom on purpose, take away birth control, or forced sex without a condom.

Participants were also asked about their lifetime histories of physical and sexual violence and history of unintended pregnancy.

The key findings:

• 53.4% reported having experienced partner violence
• 40.9% had experienced at least one unintended pregnancy
• 19.1% had experienced pregnancy coercion
• 15.0% had experienced birth control sabotage

The authors also reported that women who had experienced partner violence in the past were also more likely to have experienced pregnancy coercion or birth control sabotage (35% of those reporting violence compared to 15% of those not reporting violence). Women who had experienced reproductive control (coercion or sabotage) were also more likely to have experienced an unplanned pregnancy. When looking at the data by exposure to partner violence, reproductive control was associated with unintended pregnancy only among those who were exposed to partner violence.

Although the authors looked at lifetime exposures and so could not look at associations within specific relationships or the order of these events in time, one co-author of the study suggested that the associations may “explain why unintended pregnancies are far more common among abused women and teens.”

The researchers conclude that:

Comprehensive screening in clinical settings for the prevalent experiences of pregnancy coercion, birth control sabotage and partner violence should be considered a priority, particularly in the context of family planning and related programmatic efforts to reduce unintended pregnancy. Such screening may facilitate the critical work of addressing barriers to contraception among affected women and girls so as to reduce their elevated risk for unintended pregnancy.

The lead author of the study was also one of the researchers for a smaller study of intimate partner violence and birth control sabotage that we reported on in 2007.

[Note: Although I was able to get a copy of the article, it is not yet readily available online. I'll try to add a link if an abstract/full text becomes available.]

But a number of women’s health organizations, including Our Bodies Ourselves, the National Women’s Health Network and Breast Cancer Action, for years have warned that regular mammograms do not necessarily decrease a women’s risk of death. Premenopausal women in particular are urged to consider the risks and benefits.

In fact, the NWHN issued a position paper in 1993 recommending against screening mammography for pre-menopausal women. It was a very controversial position at the time — even more so than now. The breast cancer advocacy movement was in its infancy and efforts were focused on getting Medicare and insurance companies to cover mammograms. What the NWHN found — and other groups have since concurred — is that the potential harm from screening can outweigh the benefits for premenopausal women.

That statement is tricky, and based on the poor explanations I’ve seen that fail to specifically address the potential dangers, it’s no wonder women are frustrated. Some are even questioning whether the guidelines were unveiled as a cost-cutting measure — a sign of the “rationing” to come under health care reform. In addition to delaying routine screening until age 50, the guidelines recommend screening women between the age of 50 and 74 every two years. It’s important to keep in mind this is intended for women with no known risk factors; women in high-risk groups should start earlier, and it may be prudent to schedule more frequent mammograms.

Adding to the confusion, cancer groups are split. The American Cancer Society came out strongly against the new guidelines. The National Cancer Institute, meanwhile, said it would reconsider its own recommendations in light of new studies. Some doctors said they would proceed cautiously before revising screening advice for patients.

I don’t believe the new guidelines are politically motivated, nor are they “patronizing” to women simply because they call into question the stress related to biopsies and false positive results. Rather, the guidelines provide a useful framework for helping each of us to decide when is the best time to begin screenings and the intervals at which they should be repeated.

The guidelines are in sync with international recommendations; the World Health Organization recommends starting screening at age 50, and in Europe, mammograms are given to post-menopausal women every other year and detection rates are similar to the United States. During an interview on MSNBC on Tuesday, breast cancer expert Dr. Susan Love said the government’s guidelines bring us into line with the rest of the world and with current research. (Read more at her blog.)

You might be thinking: Wait a moment, isn’t earlier better? Why would delaying detection be in my best interest? I’m going to explain why, but let’s first take a closer look at the guidelines, which were released by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF), an independent panel of experts in prevention and primary care. (The task force operates under the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.)

The guidelines are an update of the 2002 USPSTF recommendation statement, which called for mammograms every one to two years, starting at age 40. Dr. Alfred Berg of the University of Washington, who chaired the task force in 2002, told The New York Times this week, “We pointed out that the benefit will be quite small.” He added that while older women experience the most benefits from the screening, mammograms still prevent only a small percentage of breast cancer deaths.

Breast cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women (lung cancer is number one). According to the National Cancer Institute, about 192,370 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in 2009, and 40,170 women will die of the disease this year. A woman who is now 40 years old has a 1.44 percent chance of being diagnosed with breast cancer over the next 10 years.

For the 2009 update, the panel, now with different members, examined the role of five screening methods in reducing breast cancer mortality rates: film mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, digital mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging. It also commissioned two studies:

1.) A targeted systematic evidence review of six selected questions relating to benefits and harms of screening.

2.) A decision analysis that used population modeling techniques to compare the expected health outcomes and resource requirements of starting and ending mammography screening at different ages and using annual versus biennial screening intervals.

Here is the summary of the task force’s findings, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The grades are explained here; A is the highest recommendation (meaning there’s a high certainty the benefits are substantial), and D is the lowest. A rating of I indicates evidence is insufficient or conflicting.

The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms. This is a C recommendation.

The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 years. This is a B recommendation.

The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. This is an I statement.

The USPSTF recommends against teaching breast self-examination (BSE). This is a D recommendation.

The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination (CBE) beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older. This is an I statement.

The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer. This is an I statement.

Dr. Diana Petitti, a professor of biomedical informatics at Arizona State University and vice chair of the current task force, told The New York Times the panel knew the recommendations would surprise many women, but, she said, “We have to say what we see based on the science and the data.”

Frankly, I was surprised by the conclusion that self breast exams are not considered useful. News stories this week have included many anecdotes from women who found a lump that turned out to be cancerous, and every doctor I heard interviewed said that women should definitely contact their physician if they notice any changes in their breast. But what we’re learning is that feeling our own breasts for lumps is not statistically effective, and women who do self breast exams get twice as many biopsies.

The World Health Organization concurs: “There is no evidence on the effect of screening through breast self-examination (BSE). However, the practice of BSE has been seen to empower women, taking responsibility for their own health. Therefore, BSE is recommended for raising awareness among women at risk rather than as a screening method.”

Around 37 million mammograms are done each year. So what’s the problem there? For starters, mammograms use low-dose X-rays to examine the breast, and exposure to radiation can have a cumulative effect on the body. And they’re imperfect. About half of all premenopausal women, and one-third of postmenopausal women, have dense breasts, which makes their mammograms more difficult to read.

Mammograms produce false-positive results in about 10 percent of cases, leading to anxiety that can last for years, unnecessary and sometimes-disfiguring biopsies, and unneeded treatment, including surgery, radiation and chemotherapy — each of which present their own complications and health risks, including an increased risk of other cancers and heart disease.

According to the National Breast Cancer Coalition, U.S. estimates show a woman’s cumulative risk for a false-positive result after 10 mammograms is almost 50 percent. The risk for undergoing an unnecessary biopsy is almost 20 percent. Barbara Brenner, executive director of Breast Cancer Action, told me last year that research indicates that having more biopsies increases the risk of breast cancer, though the reason is unclear (read my post here).

Women are constantly being told “early detection saves lives,” but in reality we know some breast cancers, by the time they’re found, cannot be treated. Other cancers will never be life-threatening, and some will respond to currently available treatments. Unfortunately, the type of cancer cannot be determined at the time of diagnosis, which means we don’t know for sure whether the treatment will cause more harm than the cancer.

If you’re reading this and thinking you still want to keep that scheduled mammogram, you should certainly do so.

“No one is saying that women should not be screened in their 40s,” said Petitti, the task force vice chair. “We’re saying there needs to be a discussion between women and their doctors.”

Dr. Amy Abernethy of the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center said she agrees with updated recommendations.

“Overall, I think it really took courage for them to do this,” she said. “It does ask us as doctors to change what we do and how we communicate with patients. That’s no small undertaking.”

Finally, I want to address the insurance question. At this point, insurance companies and Medicare administrators are saying that they will continue to pay for mammograms. Here’s what may change in the future, according to The New York Times:

The guidelines are not expected to have an immediate effect on insurance coverage but should make health plans less likely to aggressively prompt women in their 40s to have mammograms and older women to have the test annually.

Congress requires Medicare to pay for annual mammograms. Medicare can change its rules to pay for less frequent tests if federal officials direct it to. Private insurers are required by law in every state except Utah to pay for mammograms for women in their 40s.

But the new guidelines are expected to alter the grading system for health plans, which are used as a marketing tool. Grades are issued by the National Committee for Quality Assurance, a private nonprofit organization, and one measure is the percentage of patients getting mammograms every one to two years starting at age 40.

That will change, said Margaret E. O’Kane, the group’s president, who said it would start grading plans on the number of women over 50 getting mammograms every two years.

For more information, here are some good stories and links:

NPR: All Things Considered looks at the research.

Washington Post: A good overview of the guidelines and cost controversy.

ScienceBlogs: “From my perspective, these new recommendations are a classic example of what happens when the shades of gray that make up the messy, difficult world of clinical research meet public health policy, where simple messages are needed in order to motivate public acceptance of a screening test,” writes Orac. “It’s also an example where reasonable researchers and physicians can look at exactly the same evidence for and against screening at different ages and come to different conclusions based on a balancing of the potential benefit versus the cost.”

The associated study paper in the journal provides more detail.  The research looked at 3,253 women in Denmark who had undergone unilateral (one-sided) breast cancer surgery in 2005-2006. The women were surveyed 2-3 years after surgery. Clinical data on the surgeries and follow-up was extracted from Danish registries, and women were surveyed about the presence or absence of pain and its location, severity, and frequency.

The authors found that 47% of the surveyed women reported pain. Of these women, 13%  reported severe pain; 39% reported moderate pain; and 48% reported light pain.

Among the 13% of women with severe pain, 77% experienced pain every day. Many of the women experiencing ongoing pain (28%) had additional contact with a physician to try to address the issue, or were taking analgesics or receiving other therapy in attempts to relieve the pain.

Younger women were more likely to report pain. There was no difference in rates of ongoing pain for mastectomy vs. breast conserving surgery, but women who had mastectomy had a higher risk of moderate to severe pain as opposed to lighter pain. Women who received adjuvant radiotherapy also had a higher risk of reporting pain. Additional women reported sensory disturbances or discomfort.

With nearly 50% of women experiencing chronic pain 2 to 3 years after surgery, it’s clear that more research on effective ways of controlling or preventing the pain needs to happen.

For the study, the researchers examined samples from 101 patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and 218 healthy controls to see if they could detect the virus. They were able to detect the virus in 67% of those with CFS, and 3.7% of controls, leading them to conclude that the virus is perhaps somehow associated with the disease.

The link between XMRV and either prostate cancer or chronic fatigue syndrome is not fully understood and may not be causative. The authors of the current study themselves conclude with several questions about whether the virus is a causal factor for CFS or simply more readily hosted in immunosuppressed patients. In a commentary on the findings for Science, two authors write:

There is still much that we do not understand. Whether the virus plays a causative role in either chronic fatigue syndrome or prostate cancer is unknown. For example, XMRV infection might, coincidentally, be more frequent in the same geographical region as a cluster of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. And individuals with either disease might be more readily infected due to immune activation.

The research team plans further investigation into the association, including whether – because both are a type of virus called a retrovirus – drugs for the treatment of HIV may have some effect against CFS.

Scientific American and Not Exactly Rocket Science (at ScienceBlogs) have additional summary with discussion in the comments. For more information on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, see the webpage of the CFIDS Association of America.

The authors analyzed data from the Women’s Health Initiative study, a trial of estrogen plus progestin hormone therapy in postmenopausal women that was stopped early when the associated health risks (including cardiovascular disease and breast cancer) were found to exceed the benefits. For this analysis, they looked at data on the incidence and mortality rates of all lung cancer, small-cell lung cancer, and non-small-cell lung cancer.

They found:

78 women in the combined hormone therapy group who had received a diagnosis of lung cancer died during follow-up, compared with 49 in the placebo group (0·12% vs 0·08%; HR 1·50, 1·05—2·14, p=0·03). Of these deaths, 73 (94%) in the combined hormone therapy group and 40 (82%) in the placebo group were directly attributed to lung cancer by chart review (HR 1·71, 1·16—2·52, p=0·01).

The impact of the study is limited, as the authors acknowledge, because of the unplanned post-hoc analysis (a statistically weak method), and because of the small number of lung cancers in the population (fewer thank 130 out of more than 16,000 women studied) and the absence of information on treatment after diagnosis. An accompanying commentary in the journal explains that “data on the effect of oestrogens on both the incidence of lung cancer and outcomes from lung cancer are controversial,” with conflicting findings and limited study designs.

Due to its limitations, the new Lancet paper does not provide strong evidence on whether hormone replacement therapy significantly raises the risk of death from lung cancer, but it may encourage future research and suggest something that should, as the authors conclude, “be considered before the initiation or continuation of combined hormone therapy in postmenopausal women, especially those with a high risk of lung cancer, such as current smokers or long-term past smokers.”

Related: The National Cancer Institute provides information on hormone replacement therapy and risks for breast, ovarian, colorectal, and endometrial cancer and related issues here.

But according to a new study by the editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association, some of the top medical journals have published a significant number of articles written by ghostwriters without notifying readers about any potential conflict of interest.

“In the scientific literature, ghostwriting usually refers to medical writers, often sponsored by a drug or medical device company, who make major research or writing contributions to articles published under the names of academic authors,” write Duff Wilson and Natasha Singer in The New York Times, which covered the study last week.

The Times has published several other articles on this topic recently, including news that Wyeth pharmaceutical company paid ghostwriters to produce 26 scientific papers promoting the benefits and downplaying the risks of hormone replacement therapy. (Read our coverage, including Stephen Colbert’s take.)

Considering what’s at stake — treatment decisions and patient care — it’s remarkable that articles in well-respected, peer-reviewed journals are not fully transparent.

The JAMA editors created an anonymous, online questionnaire for authors of journal articles. The authors were asked to self-report their own behavior. Authors of 630 articles responded; of them, 7.8 percent acknowledged other people worked on the articles and the contributions were substantial enough that they should have been listed as authors.

The New England Journal of Medicine had the highest rate of ghostwriting at 10.9 percent. The rate was 7.9 percent in JAMA; 7.6 percent in The Lancet; 7.6 percent in PLoS Medicine; 4.9 percent in The Annals of Internal Medicine; and 2 percent in Nature Medicine.

“It was very compelling, and I find it quite shocking, to be honest,” Ginny Barbour, chief editor of PLoS Medicine, the journal of the Public Library of Science, said after the findings were unveiled at an international meeting of journal editors in Vancouver. “We are a journal that has very tough policies, very explicit policies on ghostwriting and contributorship, and I feel that we’ve basically been lied to by authors.”

Read more from PLoS here.

The news comes just weeks after the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a federal agency that invests more than $30 billion in medical research each year, most of which is awarded through competitive grants to researchers at universities, medical schools and other research institutions, came under fire for not promoting a clear policy on ghostwriting with regards to NIH-funded researchers and institutions.

In a letter to the NIH, which was obtained by The New York Times, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) identified researchers at Columbia University and University of Maryland who were recipients of NIH grants and who have signed on to ghostwritten publications. Academic institutions traditionally have also taken a hands-off approach.

The first (.pdf), published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, examines fetal and newborn outcomes of planned home and planned hospital births among low-risk women.

For this retrospective study, the authors identified all low-risk women (more than 500,000 of them) who gave birth in the years 2000-2006 in Netherlands and who were in midwife-led care at the onset of labor. They explain that in the Netherlands, independent primary care midwives care for low-risk pregnant women, but women are transferred to “secondary” care with an obstetrician if any risks arise during pregnancy, or to a hospital if problems occur during a planned home birth.

Approximately 30% of women in the Netherlands give birth at home. The authors compared women by intended place of birth (home, 60.7%; hospital, 30.8%; or unknown, 8.5%) for intrapartum fetal death, intrapartum and neonatal death up to 24 hours, and intrapartum and neonatal death up to 7 days and admission after birth to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Women were included as low risk if they gave birth at 37-42 weeks gestation to a single fetus, with no known medical or obstetric risk factors, cephalic (head down) presentation, no previous c-section, no previous postpartum hemorrhage, no prolonged (>24 hours) rupture of membrane, no congenital abnormality, and no intrauterine death prior to onset of labor. Women not meeting these criteria were not considered low risk and so were not included. Included women who planned a home birth may have been transferred to a hospital for reasons such as failure to progress, an abnormal fetal heart rate pattern, or meconium staining.

The authors explain that after controlling for confounding factors (maternal and gestational age, parity, ethnic background, and socioeconomic status), there was no significant difference between groups on measures of perinatal mortality, and no significant difference between planned home vs. planned hospital groups on risk of NICU admission.

The authors note that the study has some limitations, including its retrospective design and missing NICU data for 50% of the non-teaching hospitals. It’s strengths are its very large size, available national registry data, and comparison of groups of women who were considered low risk until the onset of labor, rather than comparing low-risk women planning home births to mixed hospital birth populations that include known high risk patients (i.e., those who were never candidates for home birth).

An editorial on the paper notes that the approach to maternity care in the Netherlands is rather different from that in some other locations, explaining that “maternity services in the Netherlands are set up to meet the demand for home births, transport is good, and distances short,” but also calls the large study “reassuring about the relative safety of planning home births if women are low risk.

Jennifer Block (“Pushed”) wrote about this study and home birth in general last month for Babble, and the UK’s National Health Service offers this summary.

A recent retrospective cohort study, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, was conducted in British Columbia, Canada, and compared 2,889 planned home births attended by registered midwives to planned hospital births attended by registered midwives (4,752) or physicians (5,331). Women planning to give birth at home had to be medically eligible for home birth at the onset of labor. These eligibility criteria excluded women with certain pre-existing conditions (such as heart disease), pregnancy-related diseases such as gestational diabetes requiring insulin and hypertension, multiple fetuses, non-cephalic presentation, premature or post-dates pregnancies (<36 or >42 weeks), >1 previous c-section, and other factors. The planned hospital births included in the study also met the home birth eligibility criteria.

The authors’ primary outcome of interest was the rate of perinatal death, defined as stillbirth after 20 weeks’ gestation or death in the first 7 days of life, although stillbirths occurring before the onset of labor or in women who gave birth before 37 weeks were excluded from all groups.

The outcomes were analyzed by planned place of birth. Specific information on reasons for transfer does not seem to be available, but 78.8% of those women who planned a home birth with a midwife had one, and 96.9% of those who planned to be attended by a midwife in a hospital did so.

The authors found no statistically significant differences in the low risk of perinatal mortality between the 3 groups, at 0.35/1,000 for planned home birth, 0.57/1,000 for planned hospital birth with a midwife, and 0.64/1,000 for planned hospital birth with a physician. There were no deaths from 8-28 days of life. The authors also observed lower rates of obstetric interventions for planned home births with midwives than with either hospital group – the full text with tables of these secondary outcomes is freely available online.

The authors note the ability to compare place of birth without confounding from the type of provider (assuming physicians are more likely to conduct interventions than midwives), a strength of the Dutch study as well. But the authors also explain that “our findings do not extend to settings where midwives do not have extensive academic and clinical training.” They also note the possibility that some unknown difference between groups that influenced choice of birth place may have affected the outcomes, but that “our data indicate that screening for eligibility by registered midwives can safely support a policy of choice of birth setting.”

Amy Romano at Science & Sensibility and Lauredhel at Hoyden About Town have both written about the study, with a fair bit of discussion at both places.

Citations: de Jonge A, van der Goes BY, Ravelli AC, Amelink-Verburg MP, Mol BW, Nijhuis JG, Bennebroek Gravenhorst J, Buitendijk SE. Perinatal mortality and morbidity in a nationwide cohort of 529,688 low-risk planned home and hospital births. BJOG. 2009 Aug;116(9):1177-84.
Janssen PA, Saxell L, Page LA, Klein MC, Liston RM, Lee SK. Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician. CMAJ. 2009 Aug 31. [Epub ahead of print]

I am particularly enthused about this one not only because it’s related to women’s health, but because it was done by the Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) at my larger workplace, and I was actually involved in this topic through input on the search strategy and reviewing abstracts and full-text papers for inclusion/exclusion in the analysis. My colleague Rebecca Jerome was more deeply involved in the process, including some of the write-up, and is listed as one of the investigators.

Here’s the link to the PDF, if you’re interested. OBOS has some related content on urinary urgency and frequency and interstitial cystitis here, which touches on the confusion about treatment/mistreatment of urinary problems in women. Similarly, the AHRQ report notes that while overactive bladder is somewhat common and effectively resolving it may be important for women’s quality of life, the effects of the available treatments (including drug treatment) are considered “modest,” with little high quality literature available on the topic to guide treatment choices. As the Executive Summary concludes: “Women and their care providers deserve better information to guide their choices.”

[Cross-posted from Women's Health News]