“
“Subclinical hyperthyroidism is defined by low or undetectable serum thyroid-stimulating

hormone levels, with normal free thyroxine and total or free triiodothyronine levels. It can be caused by increased endogenous production of thyroid hormone (as in Graves disease or toxic nodular goiter), administration LDK378 of thyroid hormone for treatment of malignant thyroid disease, or unintentional excessive thyroid hormone therapy. The rate of progression to overt hyperthyroidism is higher in persons who have suppressed thyroid-stimulating hormone levels compared with those who have low but detectable levels. Subclinical hyperthyroidism is associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation in older adults, and with decreased bone mineral density in postmenopausal women; however, the effectiveness of treatment in preventing these conditions is unknown. There is lesser-quality evidence suggesting an association between subclinical hyperthyroidism and other cardiovascular effects, including

increased heart rate and left ventricular mass, and increased bone turnover markers. Possible associations between subclinical hyperthyroidism and quality of life parameters, cognition, and increased mortality, rates are controversial. Prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to address the effects of early treatment on potential morbidities to help determine whether screening should be recommended in the asymptomatic general population. (Am Fam Physician. 2011;83(8):933-938. Copyright (c) 2011 American Academy of Family Physicians.)”
“The ABT-263 most common reason for rating up the quality of evidence is a large effect. GRADE suggests considering rating up quality of evidence one level when methodologically rigorous observational studies show at least a two-fold Volasertib reduction or increase

in risk, and rating up two levels for at least a five-fold reduction or increase in risk. Systematic review authors and guideline developers may also consider rating up quality of evidence when a dose-response gradient is present, and when all plausible confounders or biases would decrease an apparent treatment effect, or would create a spurious effect when results suggest no effect. Other considerations include the rapidity of the response, the underlying trajectory of the condition, and indirect evidence. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.”
“Aim:

This study investigated the utility of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) as a method for cervical cancer screening in Thailand and examined the relationship of VIA to high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) status.

Methods:

Cervical cells were collected from 160 patients receiving a Pap smear. VIA was performed on the cervix of the patients by application of 5% acetic acid. HPV screening of DNA extracted from cytology samples was performed by PCR using the GP5+/6+ primer system followed by reverse line blot hybridization genotyping.

Results:

The majority (96.