Université Laval

BACKGROUND: Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions. SEARCH METHODS: Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) are a distinctive feature of the genomes of most Bacteria and Archaea and are thought to be involved in resistance to bacteriophages. We found that, after viral challenge, bacteria integrated new spacers derived from phage genomic sequences. Removal or addition of particular spacers modified the phage-resistance phenotype of the cell. Thus, CRISPR, together with associated cas genes, provided resistance against phages, and resistance specificity is determined by spacer-phage sequence similarity.

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,
\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,
\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,
\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,
\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,
\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,
\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,
\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,
\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,
\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,
\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,
\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,
\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,
\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,
\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,
\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,
\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,
\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,
\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,
\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,
\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,
\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,
\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,
\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,
\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,
\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,
\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,
\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,
\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,
\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,
\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,
\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,
\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,
\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,
\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,
\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,
\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,
\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,
\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,
\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,
\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,
\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,
\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,
\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,
\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,
\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,
\nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002,
\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,
\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,
\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,
\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,
\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,
\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,
\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,
\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,
\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,
\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,
\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,
\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,
\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,
\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,
\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,
\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,
\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,
\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,
\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,
\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,
\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,
\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,
\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,
\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,
\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,
\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,
\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,
\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,
\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,
\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,
\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,
\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,
\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,
\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,
\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,
\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,
\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,
\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,
\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

OBJECTIVE: The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) group revised and validated the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria in order to improve clinical relevance, meet stringent methodology requirements, and incorporate new knowledge regarding the immunology of SLE. METHODS: The classification criteria were derived from a set of 702 expert-rated patient scenarios. Recursive partitioning was used to derive an initial rule that was simplified and refined based on SLICC physician consensus. The SLICC group validated the classification criteria in a new validation sample of 690 new expert-rated patient scenarios. RESULTS: Seventeen criteria were identified. In the derivation set, the SLICC classification criteria resulted in fewer misclassifications compared with the current ACR classification criteria (49 versus 70; P = 0.0082) and had greater sensitivity (94% versus 86%; P < 0.0001) and equal specificity (92% versus 93%; P = 0.39). In the validation set, the SLICC classification criteria resulted in fewer misclassifications compared with the current ACR classification criteria (62 versus 74; P = 0.24) and had greater sensitivity (97% versus 83%; P < 0.0001) but lower specificity (84% versus 96%; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The new SLICC classification criteria performed well in a large set of patient scenarios rated by experts. According to the SLICC rule for the classification of SLE, the patient must satisfy at least 4 criteria, including at least one clinical criterion and one immunologic criterion OR the patient must have biopsy-proven lupus nephritis in the presence of antinuclear antibodies or anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies.

As natural selection must act on underlying genetic variation, discovering the number and location of loci under the influence of selection is imperative towards understanding adaptive divergence in evolving populations. Studies employing genome scans have hypothesized that the action of divergent selection should reduce gene flow at the genomic locations implicated in adaptation and speciation among natural populations, yet once 'outlier' patterns of variation have been identified the function and role of such loci needs to be confirmed. We integrated adaptive QTL mapping and genomic scans among diverging sympatric pairs of the lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) species complex in order to test the hypothesis that differentiation between dwarf and normal ecotypes at growth-associated QTL was maintained by directional selection. We found evidence of significantly high levels of molecular divergence among eight growth QTL where two of the strongest candidate loci under the influence of directional selection exhibited parallel reductions of gene flow over multiple populations.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have shown that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve replacement. We evaluated the two procedures in a randomized trial involving intermediate-risk patients. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, at 57 centers, to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke at 2 years. The primary hypothesis was that TAVR would not be inferior to surgical replacement. Before randomization, patients were entered into one of two cohorts on the basis of clinical and imaging findings; 76.3% of the patients were included in the transfemoral-access cohort and 23.7% in the transthoracic-access cohort. RESULTS: The rate of death from any cause or disabling stroke was similar in the TAVR group and the surgery group (P=0.001 for noninferiority). At 2 years, the Kaplan-Meier event rates were 19.3% in the TAVR group and 21.1% in the surgery group (hazard ratio in the TAVR group, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.09; P=0.25). In the transfemoral-access cohort, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of death or disabling stroke than surgery (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.00; P=0.05), whereas in the transthoracic-access cohort, outcomes were similar in the two groups. TAVR resulted in larger aortic-valve areas than did surgery and also resulted in lower rates of acute kidney injury, severe bleeding, and new-onset atrial fibrillation; surgery resulted in fewer major vascular complications and less paravalvular aortic regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: In intermediate-risk patients, TAVR was similar to surgical aortic-valve replacement with respect to the primary end point of death or disabling stroke. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313.).

BACKGROUND: Among patients with aortic stenosis who are at intermediate or high risk for death with surgery, major outcomes are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve replacement. There is insufficient evidence regarding the comparison of the two procedures in patients who are at low risk. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR with transfemoral placement of a balloon-expandable valve or surgery. The primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year. Both noninferiority testing (with a prespecified margin of 6 percentage points) and superiority testing were performed in the as-treated population. RESULTS: At 71 centers, 1000 patients underwent randomization. The mean age of the patients was 73 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 1.9% (with scores ranging from 0 to 100% and higher scores indicating a greater risk of death within 30 days after the procedure). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of the primary composite end point at 1 year was significantly lower in the TAVR group than in the surgery group (8.5% vs. 15.1%; absolute difference, -6.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10.8 to -2.5; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79; P = 0.001 for superiority). At 30 days, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of stroke than surgery (P = 0.02) and in lower rates of death or stroke (P = 0.01) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (P<0.001). TAVR also resulted in a shorter index hospitalization than surgery (P<0.001) and in a lower risk of a poor treatment outcome (death or a low Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score) at 30 days (P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in major vascular complications, new permanent pacemaker insertions, or moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was significantly lower with TAVR than with surgery. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.).

Allergic rhinitis is a symptomatic disorder of the nose\ninduced after allergen exposure by an IgE-mediated\ninflammation of the membranes lining the nose. It is a\nglobal health problem that causes major illness and disability\nworldwide. Over 600 million patients from all\ncountries, all ethnic groups and of all ages suffer from\nallergic rhinitis. It affects social life, sleep, school and\nwork and its economic impact is substantial.\nRisk factors for allergic rhinitis are well identified.\nIndoor and outdoor allergens as well as occupational\nagents cause rhinitis and other allergic diseases.\nThe role of indoor and outdoor pollution is probably\nvery important, but has yet to be fully understood\nboth for the occurrence of the disease and its manifestations.\nIn 1999, during the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on\nAsthma (ARIA) WHO workshop, the expert panel\nproposed a new classification for allergic rhinitis which\nwas subdivided into _intermittent_ or _persistent_ disease.\nThis classification is now validated.\nThe diagnosis of allergic rhinitis is often quite easy, but\nin some cases it may cause problems and many patients\nare still under-diagnosed, often because they do not\nperceive the symptoms of rhinitis as a disease impairing\ntheir social life, school and work.\nThe management of allergic rhinitis is well established\nand the ARIA expert panel based its recommendations\non evidence using an extensive review of the literature\navailable up to December 1999. The statements of\nevidence for the development of these guidelines followed\nWHO rules and were based on those of Shekelle et al.\nA large number of papers have been published since 2000\nand are extensively reviewed in the 2008 Update using\nthe same evidence-based system. Recommendations for\nthe management of allergic rhinitis are similar in both the\nARIA workshop report and the 2008 Update. In the\nfuture, the GRADE approach will be used, but is not yet\navailable.\nAnother important aspect of the ARIA guidelines was\nto consider co-morbidities. Both allergic rhinitis and\nasthma are systemic inflammatory conditions and often\nco-exist in the same patients. In the 2008 Update, these\nlinks have been confirmed.\nTheARIAdocument is not intended to be a standard-ofcare\ndocument for individual countries. It is provided as a\nbasis for physicians, health care professionals and\norganizations involved in the treatment of allergic rhinitis\nand asthma in various countries to facilitate the\ndevelopment of relevant local standard-of-care documents\nfor patients.

BACKGROUND: Although insomnia is a prevalent complaint with significant morbidity, it often remains unrecognized and untreated. Brief and valid instruments are needed both for screening and outcome assessment. This study examined psychometric indices of the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) to detect cases of insomnia in a population-based sample and to evaluate treatment response in a clinical sample. METHODS: Participants were 959 individuals selected from the community for an epidemiological study of insomnia (Community sample) and 183 individuals evaluated for insomnia treatment and 62 controls without insomnia (Clinical sample). They completed the ISI and several measures of sleep quality, fatigue, psychological symptoms, and quality of life; those in the Clinical sample also completed sleep diaries, polysomnography, and interviews to validate their insomnia/good sleep status and assess treatment response. In addition to standard psychometric indices of reliability and validity, item response theory analyses were computed to examine ISI item response patterns. Receiver operating curves were used to derive optimal cutoff scores for case identification and to quantify the minimally important changes in relation to global improvement ratings obtained by an independent assessor. RESULTS: ISI internal consistency was excellent for both samples (Cronbach α of 0.90 and 0.91). Item response analyses revealed adequate discriminatory capacity for 5 of the 7 items. Convergent validity was supported by significant correlations between total ISI score and measures of fatigue, quality of life, anxiety, and depression. A cutoff score of 10 was optimal (86.1% sensitivity and 87.7% specificity) for detecting insomnia cases in the community sample. In the clinical sample, a change score of -8.4 points (95% CI: -7.1, -9.4) was associated with moderate improvement as rated by an independent assessor after treatment. CONCLUSION: These findings provide further evidence that the ISI is a reliable and valid instrument to detect cases of insomnia in the population and is sensitive to treatment response in clinical patients.

Eric Schiffman, DDS, MS/Richard Ohrbach, DDS, PhD/Edmond Truelove, DDS, MSD/John Look, DDS, PhD/Gary Anderson, DDS, MS/Jean-Paul Goulet, DDS, MSD/Thomas List, DDS, Odont Dr/Peter Svensson, DDS, PhD, Dr Odont/Yoly Gonzalez, DDS, MS, MPH/Frank Lobbezoo, DDS, PhD/Ambra Michelotti, DDS/Sharon L. Brooks, DDS, MS/Werner Ceusters, MD/Mark Drangsholt, DDS, PhD/Dominik Ettlin, MD, DDS/Charly Gaul, MD/Louis J. Goldberg, DDS, PhD/Jennifer A. Haythornthwaite, PhD/Lars Hollender, DDS, Odont Dr/Rigmor Jensen, MD, PhD/Mike T. John, DDS, PhD/Antoon De Laat, DDS, PhD/Reny de Leeuw, DDS, PhD/William Maixner, DDS, PhD/Marylee van der Meulen, PhD/Greg M. Murray, MDS, PhD/Donald R. Nixdorf, DDS, MS/Sandro Palla, Dr Med Dent/Arne Petersson, DDS, Odont Dr/Paul Pionchon, DDS, PhD/Barry Smith, PhD/Corine M. Visscher, PT, PhD/Joanna Zakrzewska, MD, FDSRCSI/Samuel F. Dworkin, DDS, PhD: Aims: The original Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I diagnostic algorithms have been demonstrated to be reliable. However, the Validation Project determined that the RDC/TMD Axis I validity was below the target sensitivity of ≥ 0.70 and specificity of ≥ 0.95. Consequently, these empirical results supported the development of revised RDC/TMD Axis I diagnostic algorithms that were subsequently demonstrated to be valid for the most common pain-related TMD and for one temporomandibular joint (TMJ) intra-articular disorder. The original RDC/TMD Axis II instruments were shown to be both reliable and valid. Working from these findings and revisions, two international consensus workshops were convened, from which recommendations were obtained for the finalization of new Axis I diagnostic algorithms and new Axis II instruments. Methods: Through a series of workshops and symposia, a panel of clinical and basic science pain experts modified the revised RDC/TMD Axis I algorithms by using comprehensive searches of published TMD diagnostic literature followed by review and consensus via a formal structured process. The panel’s recommendations for further revision of the Axis I diagnostic algorithms were assessed for validity by using the Validation Project’s data set, and for reliability by using newly collected data from the ongoing TMJ Impact Project—the follow-up study to the Validation Project. New Axis II instruments were identified through a comprehensive search of the literature providing valid instruments that, relative to the RDC/TMD, are shorter in length, are available in the public domain, and currently are being used in medical settings. Results: The newly recommended Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) Axis I protocol includes both a valid screener for detecting any pain-related TMD as well as valid diagnostic criteria for differentiating the most common pain-related TMD (sensitivity ≥ 0.86, specificity ≥ 0.98) and for one intra-articular disorder (sensitivity of 0.80 and specificity of 0.97). Diagnostic criteria for other common intra-articular disorders lack adequate validity for clinical diagnoses but can be used for screening purposes. Inter-examiner reliability for the clinical assessment associated with the validated DC/TMD criteria for pain-related TMD is excellent (kappa ≥ 0.85). Finally, a comprehensive classification system that includes both the common and less common TMD is also presented. The Axis II protocol retains selected original RDC/TMD screening instruments augmented with new instruments to assess jaw function as well as behavioral and additional psychosocial factors. The Axis II protocol is divided into screening and comprehensive selfreport instrument sets. The screening instruments’ 41 questions assess pain intensity, pain-related disability, psychological distress, jaw functional limitations, and parafunctional behaviors, and a pain drawing is used to assess locations of pain. The comprehensive instruments, composed of 81 questions, assess in further detail jaw functional limitations and psychological distress as well as additional constructs of anxiety and presence of comorbid pain conditions. Conclusion: The recommended evidence-based new DC/TMD protocol is appropriate for use in both clinical and research settings. More comprehensive instruments augment short and simple screening instruments for Axis I and Axis II. These validated instruments allow for identification of patients with a range of simple to complex TMD presentations. J Oral Facial Pain Headache 2014;28:6–27. doi: 10.11607/jop.1151

INTRODUCTION: Appraising the quality of studies included in systematic reviews combining qualitative and quantitative evidence is challenging. To address this challenge, a critical appraisal tool was developed: the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The aim of this paper is to present the enhance ments made to the MMAT. DEVELOPMENT: The MMAT was initially developed in 2006 based on a literature review on systematic reviews combining qualitative and quantitative evidence. It was subject to pilot and interrater reliability testing. A revised version of the MMAT was developed in 2018 based on the results from usefulness testing, a literature review on critical appraisal tools and a modified e-Delphi study with methodological experts to identify core criteria. TOOL DESCRIPTION: The MMAT assesses the quality of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. It focuses on methodological criteria and includes five core quality criteria for each of the following five categories of study designs: (a) qualitative, (b) randomized controlled, (c) nonrandomized, (d) quantitative descriptive, and (e) mixed methods. CONCLUSION: The MMAT is a unique tool that can be used to appraise the quality of different study designs. Also, by limiting to core criteria, the MMAT can provide a more efficient appraisal.

Starburst99 is a comprehensive set of model predictions for spectrophotometric and related properties of galaxies with active star formation. The models are an improved and extended version of the data set previously published by Leitherer & Heckman (1995). We have upgraded our code by implementing the latest set of stellar evolution models of the Geneva group and the model atmosphere grid compiled by Lejeune et al. (1997). Several predictions which were not included in the previous publication are shown here for the first time. The models are presented in a homogeneous way for five metallicities between Z = 0.040 and 0.001 and three choices of the initial mass function. The age coverage is 10^6 to 10^9 yr. We also show the spectral energy distributions which are used to compute colors and other quantities. The full data set is available for retrieval at http://www.stsci.edu/science/starburst99/. This website allows users to run specific models with non-standard parameters as well. We also make the source code available to the community.

Sleep is characterized by synchronized events in billions of synaptically coupled neurons in thalamocortical systems. The activation of a series of neuromodulatory transmitter systems during awakening blocks low-frequency oscillations, induces fast rhythms, and allows the brain to recover full responsiveness. Analysis of cortical and thalamic networks at many levels, from molecules to single neurons to large neuronal assemblies, with a variety of techniques, ranging from intracellular recordings in vivo and in vitro to computer simulations, is beginning to yield insights into the mechanisms of the generation, modulation, and function of brain oscillations.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma that progresses after platinum-based chemotherapy have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. METHODS: In this open-label, international, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 542 patients with advanced urothelial cancer that recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy to receive pembrolizumab (a highly selective, humanized monoclonal IgG4κ isotype antibody against programmed death 1 [PD-1]) at a dose of 200 mg every 3 weeks or the investigator's choice of chemotherapy with paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinflunine. The coprimary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival, which were assessed among all patients and among patients who had a tumor PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) combined positive score (the percentage of PD-L1-expressing tumor and infiltrating immune cells relative to the total number of tumor cells) of 10% or more. RESULTS: The median overall survival in the total population was 10.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0 to 11.8) in the pembrolizumab group, as compared with 7.4 months (95% CI, 6.1 to 8.3) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.91; P=0.002). The median overall survival among patients who had a tumor PD-L1 combined positive score of 10% or more was 8.0 months (95% CI, 5.0 to 12.3) in the pembrolizumab group, as compared with 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 7.4) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.88; P=0.005). There was no significant between-group difference in the duration of progression-free survival in the total population (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.19; P=0.42) or among patients who had a tumor PD-L1 combined positive score of 10% or more (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.28; P=0.24). Fewer treatment-related adverse events of any grade were reported in the pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (60.9% vs. 90.2%); there were also fewer events of grade 3, 4, or 5 severity reported in the pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (15.0% vs. 49.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer overall survival (by approximately 3 months) and with a lower rate of treatment-related adverse events than chemotherapy as second-line therapy for platinum-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma. (Funded by Merck; KEYNOTE-045 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02256436 .).

BACKGROUND: The combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib showed antitumor activity in a phase 1b trial involving patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. Whether pembrolizumab plus axitinib would result in better outcomes than sunitinib in such patients was unclear. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 861 patients with previously untreated advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) intravenously once every 3 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily (432 patients) or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for the first 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle (429 patients). The primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The key secondary end point was the objective response rate. All reported results are from the protocol-specified first interim analysis. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 12.8 months, the estimated percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 89.9% in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 78.3% in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for death, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.74; P<0.0001). Median progression-free survival was 15.1 months in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 11.1 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.84; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 59.3% (95% CI, 54.5 to 63.9) in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 35.7% (95% CI, 31.1 to 40.4) in the sunitinib group (P<0.001). The benefit of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was observed across the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups (i.e., favorable, intermediate, and poor risk) and regardless of programmed death ligand 1 expression. Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 75.8% of patients in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and in 70.6% in the sunitinib group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival, as well as a higher objective response rate, than treatment with sunitinib. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-426 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02853331.).

PURPOSE: To review applications of Ajzen's theory of planned behavior in the domain of health and to verify the efficiency of the theory to explain and predict health-related behaviors. METHODS: Most material has been drawn from Current Contents (Social and Behavioral Sciences and Clinical Medicine) from 1985 to date, together with all peer-reviewed articles cited in the publications thus identified. FINDINGS: The results indicated that the theory performs very well for the explanation of intention; an averaged R2 of .41 was observed. Attitude toward the action and perceived behavioral control were most often the significant variables responsible for this explained variation in intention. The prediction of behavior yielded an averaged R2 of .34. Intention remained the most important predictor, but in half of the studies reviewed perceived behavioral control significantly added to the prediction. CONCLUSIONS: The efficiency of the model seems to be quite good for explaining intention, perceived behavioral control being as important as attitude across health-related behavior categories. The efficiency of the theory, however, varies between health-related behavior categories.

The reliability and concurrent validity of a simple questionnaire to assess leisure time physical activity has been investigated on 306 self-selected healthy adults of both sexes (163 M; 143 F). Values of body fat (BF) and maximum oxygen intake (VO2 max) expressed as percentiles of appropriate age and sex categories were used as criteria of validity for the questionnaire. BF and VO2 max were predicted from the Durnin and Womersley skinfold equations, and the laboratory version of the Canadian Home Fitness Test respectively. The strongest correlation was between VO2 max (percentile) and reported strenuous exercise (r = 0.35). The optimum discriminant function for VO2 max was based on a combination of reported strenuous and light activity. This yielded a correct 2-way classification of 69% of the subjects. A combination of sweat-inducing and moderate exercise yielded a correct 2-way classification of BF for 66% of subjects. The reliability coefficients for the optimum discriminant functions classifying VO2 max and BF were 0.83 and 0.85 respectively. We conclude that this simple instrument has potential value for the assessment of leisure time exercise behavior, offering the possibility of examining changes in behavior following the implementation of health and physical fitness promotion programmes in the community.

Importance: The clinical management of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers requires accurate, prospective cancer risk estimates. Objectives: To estimate age-specific risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for mutation carriers and to evaluate risk modification by family cancer history and mutation location. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of 6036 BRCA1 and 3820 BRCA2 female carriers (5046 unaffected and 4810 with breast or ovarian cancer or both at baseline) recruited in 1997-2011 through the International BRCA1/2 Carrier Cohort Study, the Breast Cancer Family Registry and the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer, with ascertainment through family clinics (94%) and population-based studies (6%). The majority were from large national studies in the United Kingdom (EMBRACE), the Netherlands (HEBON), and France (GENEPSO). Follow-up ended December 2013; median follow-up was 5 years. Exposures: BRCA1/2 mutations, family cancer history, and mutation location. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual incidences, standardized incidence ratios, and cumulative risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer. Results: Among 3886 women (median age, 38 years; interquartile range [IQR], 30-46 years) eligible for the breast cancer analysis, 5066 women (median age, 38 years; IQR, 31-47 years) eligible for the ovarian cancer analysis, and 2213 women (median age, 47 years; IQR, 40-55 years) eligible for the contralateral breast cancer analysis, 426 were diagnosed with breast cancer, 109 with ovarian cancer, and 245 with contralateral breast cancer during follow-up. The cumulative breast cancer risk to age 80 years was 72% (95% CI, 65%-79%) for BRCA1 and 69% (95% CI, 61%-77%) for BRCA2 carriers. Breast cancer incidences increased rapidly in early adulthood until ages 30 to 40 years for BRCA1 and until ages 40 to 50 years for BRCA2 carriers, then remained at a similar, constant incidence (20-30 per 1000 person-years) until age 80 years. The cumulative ovarian cancer risk to age 80 years was 44% (95% CI, 36%-53%) for BRCA1 and 17% (95% CI, 11%-25%) for BRCA2 carriers. For contralateral breast cancer, the cumulative risk 20 years after breast cancer diagnosis was 40% (95% CI, 35%-45%) for BRCA1 and 26% (95% CI, 20%-33%) for BRCA2 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] for comparing BRCA2 vs BRCA1, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.82; P=.001 for difference). Breast cancer risk increased with increasing number of first- and second-degree relatives diagnosed as having breast cancer for both BRCA1 (HR for ≥2 vs 0 affected relatives, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.41-2.82; P<.001 for trend) and BRCA2 carriers (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.08-3.37; P=.02 for trend). Breast cancer risk was higher if mutations were located outside vs within the regions bounded by positions c.2282-c.4071 in BRCA1 (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.11-1.93; P=.007) and c.2831-c.6401 in BRCA2 (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.36-2.74; P<.001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings provide estimates of cancer risk based on BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carrier status using prospective data collection and demonstrate the potential importance of family history and mutation location in risk assessment.

Excess intra-abdominal adipose tissue accumulation, often termed visceral obesity, is part of a phenotype including dysfunctional subcutaneous adipose tissue expansion and ectopic triglyceride storage closely related to clustering cardiometabolic risk factors. Hypertriglyceridemia; increased free fatty acid availability; adipose tissue release of proinflammatory cytokines; liver insulin resistance and inflammation; increased liver VLDL synthesis and secretion; reduced clearance of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins; presence of small, dense LDL particles; and reduced HDL cholesterol levels are among the many metabolic alterations closely related to this condition. Age, gender, genetics, and ethnicity are broad etiological factors contributing to variation in visceral adipose tissue accumulation. Specific mechanisms responsible for proportionally increased visceral fat storage when facing positive energy balance and weight gain may involve sex hormones, local cortisol production in abdominal adipose tissues, endocannabinoids, growth hormone, and dietary fructose. Physiological characteristics of abdominal adipose tissues such as adipocyte size and number, lipolytic responsiveness, lipid storage capacity, and inflammatory cytokine production are significant correlates and even possible determinants of the increased cardiometabolic risk associated with visceral obesity. Thiazolidinediones, estrogen replacement in postmenopausal women, and testosterone replacement in androgen-deficient men have been shown to favorably modulate body fat distribution and cardiometabolic risk to various degrees. However, some of these therapies must now be considered in the context of their serious side effects. Lifestyle interventions leading to weight loss generally induce preferential mobilization of visceral fat. In clinical practice, measuring waist circumference in addition to the body mass index could be helpful for the identification and management of a subgroup of overweight or obese patients at high cardiometabolic risk.

BACKGROUND: Widespread application of pulmonary rehabilitation (also known as respiratory rehabilitation) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be preceded by demonstrable improvements in function (health-related quality of life, functional and maximal exercise capacity) attributable to the programmes. This review updates the review reported in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation versus usual care on health-related quality of life and functional and maximal exercise capacity in persons with COPD. SEARCH METHODS: We identified additional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register. Searches were current as of March 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD in which health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and/or functional (FEC) or maximal (MEC) exercise capacity were measured. We defined 'pulmonary rehabilitation' as exercise training for at least four weeks with or without education and/or psychological support. We defined 'usual care' as conventional care in which the control group was not given education or any form of additional intervention. We considered participants in the following situations to be in receipt of usual care: only verbal advice was given without additional education; and medication was altered or optimised to what was considered best practice at the start of the trial for all participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We calculated mean differences (MDs) using a random-effects model. We requested missing data from the authors of the primary study. We used standard methods as recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: Along with the 31 RCTs included in the previous version (2006), we included 34 additional RCTs in this update, resulting in a total of 65 RCTs involving 3822 participants for inclusion in the meta-analysis.We noted no significant demographic differences at baseline between members of the intervention group and those who received usual care. For the pulmonary rehabilitation group, the mean forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1) was 39.2% predicted, and for the usual care group 36.4%; mean age was 62.4 years and 62.5 years, respectively. The gender mix in both groups was around two males for each female. A total of 41 of the pulmonary rehabilitation programmes were hospital based (inpatient or outpatient), 23 were community based (at community centres or in individual homes) and one study had both a hospital component and a community component. Most programmes were of 12 weeks' or eight weeks' duration with an overall range of four weeks to 52 weeks.The nature of the intervention made it impossible for investigators to blind participants or those delivering the programme. In addition, it was unclear from most early studies whether allocation concealment was undertaken; along with the high attrition rates reported by several studies, this impacted the overall risk of bias.We found statistically significant improvement for all included outcomes. In four important domains of quality of life (QoL) (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) scores for dyspnoea, fatigue, emotional function and mastery), the effect was larger than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 0.5 units (dyspnoea: MD 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.03; N = 1283; studies = 19; moderate-quality evidence; fatigue: MD 0.68, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.92; N = 1291; studies = 19; low-quality evidence; emotional function: MD 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.78; N = 1291; studies = 19; mastery: MD 0.71, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95; N = 1212; studies = 19; low-quality evidence). Statistically significant improvements were noted in all domains of the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and improvement in total score was better than 4 units (MD -6.89, 95% CI -9.26 to -4.52; N = 1146; studies = 19; low-quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis using the trials at lower risk of bias yielded a similar estimate of the treatment effect (MD -5.15, 95% CI -7.95 to -2.36; N = 572; studies = 7).Both functional exercise and maximal exercise showed statistically significant improvement. Researchers reported an increase in maximal exercise capacity (mean Wmax (W)) in participants allocated to pulmonary rehabilitation compared with usual care (MD 6.77, 95% CI 1.89 to 11.65; N = 779; studies = 16). The common effect size exceeded the MCID (4 watts) proposed by Puhan 2011(b). In relation to functional exercise capacity, the six-minute walk distance mean treatment effect was greater than the threshold of clinical significance (MD 43.93, 95% CI 32.64 to 55.21; participants = 1879; studies = 38).The subgroup analysis, which compared hospital-based programmes versus community-based programmes, provided evidence of a significant difference in treatment effect between subgroups for all domains of the CRQ, with higher mean values, on average, in the hospital-based pulmonary rehabilitation group than in the community-based group. The SGRQ did not reveal this difference. Subgroup analysis performed to look at the complexity of the pulmonary rehabilitation programme provided no evidence of a significant difference in treatment effect between subgroups that received exercise only and those that received exercise combined with more complex interventions. However, both subgroup analyses could be confounded and should be interpreted with caution. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary rehabilitation relieves dyspnoea and fatigue, improves emotional function and enhances the sense of control that individuals have over their condition. These improvements are moderately large and clinically significant. Rehabilitation serves as an important component of the management of COPD and is beneficial in improving health-related quality of life and exercise capacity. It is our opinion that additional RCTs comparing pulmonary rehabilitation and conventional care in COPD are not warranted. Future research studies should focus on identifying which components of pulmonary rehabilitation are essential, its ideal length and location, the degree of supervision and intensity of training required and how long treatment effects persist. This endeavour is important in the light of the new subgroup analysis, which showed a difference in treatment effect on the CRQ between hospital-based and community-based programmes but no difference between exercise only and more complex pulmonary rehabilitation programmes.