STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if adding a lumbar pillow in supine position during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is superior to standing positional MRI for diagnosing lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The upright standing position and especially extension of the lumbar spine seem to worsening symptoms of LSS. However, it is unclear whether a forced lumbar extension by a pillow in the lower back during conventional supine MRI may improve the diagnostics of LSS compared with standing MRI.

METHODS: Patients suspected for LSS and referred to conventional MRI were included to an additional positional MRI scan (0.25T G-Scan) performed in: (1) conventional supine, (2) standing, (3) supine with a lumbar pillow in the lower back. LSS was evaluated for each position in consensus on a 0 to 3 semi-quantitative grading scale. Independently, L2-S1 lordosis angle, spinal cross-sectional diameter (SCSD), dural cross-sectional diameter (DCSD), and dural cross-sectional diameter (DCSA) were measured. The smallest dural diameter was defined as stenosis level and the largest control level for comparison.

RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (60.6 years; ±9.4) were included. The lordosis angle increased significantly from supine to standing (3.2° CI: 1.2-5.2) and with the lumbar pillow (12.8° CI: 10.3-15.3). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant differences between positions (P < 0.001). When compared with the supine position, pairwise comparisons showed decreased SCSD, DCSD, DCSA, and increasing semi-quantitative grading, during both standing and supine with the lumbar pillow. A difference in the semi-quantitative grades was only found between standing and supine with a lumbar pillow, and the scan with a lumbar pillow was significantly more painful.

CONCLUSION: Standing MRI and supine MRI with a lumbar pillow resulted in equal changes in the lumbar spine, although standing MRI may be more sensitive in the assessment of patients suspected for LSS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

OBJECTIVE: Outcomes important to patients are those that are relevant to their well-being, including quality of life, morbid endpoints, and death. These outcomes often occur over the longterm and can be identified in prospective longitudinal observational studies (PLOS). There are no standards for which outcome domains should be considered. Our overarching goal is to identify critical longterm outcome domains for patients with rheumatic diseases, and to develop a conceptual framework to measure and classify them within the scope of OMERACT Filter 2.0.

METHODS: The steps of this initiative primarily concern rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and include (1) performing a systematic review of RA patient registries and cohorts to identify previously collected and reported outcome domains and measurement instruments; (2) developing a conceptual framework and taxonomy for identification and classification of outcome domains; (3) conducting focus groups to identify domains considered critical by patients with RA; and (4) surveying patients, providers, and researchers to identify critical outcomes that can be evaluated through the OMERACT filter.

RESULTS: In our initial evaluation of databases and registries across countries, we found both commonalities and differences, with no clear standardization. At the initial group meeting, participants agreed that additional work is needed to identify which critical outcomes should be collected in PLOS, and suggested several: death, independence, and participation, among others. An operational strategy for the next 2 years was proposed.

CONCLUSION: Participants endorsed the need for an initiative to identify and evaluate critical outcome domains and measurement instruments for data collection in PLOS.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize and compare the benefits and harms of biological agents used as monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in order to inform decisions for patients who are intolerant to conventional DMARD therapy.

METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and other sources for randomised trials that compared biological monotherapy with methotrexate, placebo, or other biological monotherapies. Primary outcomes were ACR50 and the number of patients who discontinued due to adverse events. Our network meta-analysis was based on mixed-effects logistic regression, including both direct and indirect comparisons of the treatment effects, while preserving the randomised comparisons within each trial. PROSPERO identifier: CRD42012002800.

RESULTS: The analysis comprises 28 trials (8602 patients), including all nine biological agents approved for RA. Eight trials included "DMARD-naïve", and 20 "DMARD-Inadequate responder" (DMARD-IR) patients. All agents except anakinra and infliximab were superior (p < 0.05) to placebo (i.e., no DMARD treatment) with regard to ACR50. Etanercept and rituximab were superior to anakinra (p = 0.018 and p = 0.049, respectively). Tocilizumab was superior to adalimumab (p = 0.0082), anakinra (p = 0.0083), certolizumab (p = 0.037), and golimumab (p = 0.049). No differences among etanercept, tocilizumab, and rituximab were found (p > 0.52). However, because rituximab was evaluated in just 40 patients, our confidence in the estimates is limited. When including only DMARD-IR trials, the same statistical pattern emerged; in addition etanercept and tocilizumab were superior to abatacept. At recommended doses, both etanercept and tocilizumab were superior to adalimumab and certolizumab. No statistically significant differences among biological agents were found with respect to discontinuation due to adverse events (p > 0.068).

CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from randomised trials suggests that most biological agents are effective as monotherapy. Although our confidence in the estimates is limited, etanercept or tocilizumab may be the optimal choice for most patients who need treatment with biological monotherapy. However, given our limited confidence in the estimates including possibility of bias, it is appropriate to strongly weight patients׳ preferences and values in the final treatment choice.

OBJECTIVE: Failure to report harmful outcomes in clinical research can introduce bias favoring a potentially harmful intervention. While core outcome sets (COS) are available for benefits in randomized controlled trials in many rheumatic conditions, less attention has been paid to safety in such COS. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.0 emphasizes the importance of measuring harms. The Safety Working Group was reestablished at the OMERACT 2016 with the objective to develop a COS for assessing safety components in trials across rheumatologic conditions.

METHODS: The safety issue has previously been discussed at OMERACT, but without a consistent approach to ensure harms were included in COS. Our methods include (1) identifying harmful outcomes in trials of interventions studied in patients with rheumatic diseases by a systematic literature review, (2) identifying components of safety that should be measured in such trials by use of a patient-driven approach including qualitative data collection and statistical organization of data, and (3) developing a COS through consensus processes including everyone involved.

RESULTS: Members of OMERACT including patients, clinicians, researchers, methodologists, and industry representatives reached consensus on the need to continue the efforts on developing a COS for safety in rheumatology trials. There was a general agreement about the need to identify safety-related outcomes that are meaningful to patients, framed in terms that patients consider relevant so that they will be able to make informed decisions.

CONCLUSION: The OMERACT Safety Working Group will advance the work previously done within OMERACT using a new patient-driven approach.

STUDY QUESTION: Are parity and the timing of menarche associated with premature and early natural menopause?

SUMMARY ANSWER: Early menarche (≤11 years) is a risk factor for both premature menopause (final menstrual period, FMP <40 years) and early menopause (FMP 40-44 years), a risk that is amplified for nulliparous women.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Women with either premature or early menopause face an increased risk of chronic conditions in later life and of early death. Findings from some studies suggest that early menarche and nulliparity are associated with early menopause, however overall the evidence is mixed. Much of the evidence for a direct relationship is hampered by a lack of comparability across studies, failure to adjust for confounding factors and inadequate statistical power.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This pooled study comprises 51 450 postmenopausal women from nine observational studies in the UK, Scandinavia, Australia and Japan that contribute to the International collaboration for a Life course Approach to reproductive health and Chronic disease Events (InterLACE).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Age at menarche (categorized as ≤11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 or more years) and parity (categorized as no children, one child and two or more children) were exposures of interest. Age at FMP was confirmed by at least 12 months of cessation of menses where this was not the result of an intervention (such as surgical menopause due to bilateral oophorectomy or hysterectomy) and categorized as premature menopause (FMP before age 40), early menopause (FMP 40-44 years), 45-49 years, 50-51 years, 52-53 years and 54 or more years. We used multivariate multinomial logistic regression models to estimate relative risk ratio (RRR) and 95% CI for associations between menarche, parity and age at FMP adjusting for within-study correlation.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The median age at FMP was 50 years (interquartile range 48-53 years), with 2% of the women experiencing premature menopause and 7.6% early menopause. Women with early menarche (≤11 years, compared with 12-13 years) were at higher risk of premature menopause (RRR 1.80, 95% CI 1.53-2.12) and early menopause (1.31, 1.19-1.44). Nulliparity was associated with increased risk of premature menopause (2.26, 1.84-2.77) and early menopause (1.32, 1.09-1.59). Women having early menarche and nulliparity were at over 5-fold increased risk of premature menopause (5.64, 4.04-7.87) and 2-fold increased risk of early menopause (2.16, 1.48-3.15) compared with women who had menarche at ≥12 years and two or more children.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Most of the studies (except the birth cohorts) relied on retrospectively reported age at menarche, which may have led to some degree of recall bias.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our findings support early monitoring of women with early menarche, especially those who have no children, for preventive health interventions aimed at mitigating the risk of adverse health outcomes associated with early menopause.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): InterLACE project is funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council project grant (APP1027196). G.D.M. is supported by Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT120100812). There are no competing interests.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of FIFA injury prevention programmes in football (FIFA 11 and FIFA 11+).

DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials comparing the FIFA injury prevention programmes with a control (no or sham intervention) among football players.

DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE via OVID, CINAHL via Ebsco, Web of Science, SportDiscus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from 2004 to 14 March 2016.

RESULTS: 6 cluster-randomised controlled trials had assessed the effect of FIFA injury prevention programmes compared with controls on the overall football injury incidence in recreational/subelite football. These studies included 2 specific exercise-based injury prevention programmes: FIFA 11 (2 studies) and FIFA 11+ (4 studies). The primary analysis showed a reduction in the overall injury risk ratio of 0.75 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.98), p=0.04, in favour of the FIFA injury prevention programmes. Secondary analyses revealed that when pooling the 4 studies applying the FIFA 11+ prevention programme, a reduction in the overall injury risk ratio (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.61; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77, p<0.001) was present in favour of the FIFA 11+ prevention programme. No reduction was present when pooling the 2 studies including the FIFA 11 prevention programme (IRR 0.99; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23, p=0.940).

CONCLUSIONS: An injury-preventing effect of the FIFA injury prevention programmes compared with controls was shown in football. This effect was induced by the FIFA 11+ prevention programme which has a substantial injury-preventing effect by reducing football injuries by 39%, whereas a preventive effect of the FIFA 11 prevention programme could not be documented.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42015024120.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to evaluate the impact of a 15-month intervention on dietary intake conducted among obesity-prone normal-weight pre-school children.

DESIGN: Information on dietary intake was obtained using a 4 d diet record. A diet quality index was adapted to assess how well children's diet complied with the Danish national guidelines. Linear regression per protocol and intention-to-treat analyses of differences in intakes of energy, macronutrients, fruit, vegetables, fish, sugar-sweetened beverages and diet quality index between the two groups were conducted.

SETTING: The Healthy Start study was conducted during 2009-2011, focusing on changing diet, physical activity, sleep and stress management to prevent excessive weight gain among Danish children.

SUBJECTS: From a population of 635 Danish pre-school children, who had a high birth weight (≥4000 g), high maternal pre-pregnancy BMI (≥28·0 kg/m2) or low maternal educational level (<10 years of schooling), 285 children completed the intervention and had complete information on dietary intake.

RESULTS: Children in the intervention group had a lower energy intake after the 15-month intervention (group means: 5·29 v. 5·59 MJ, P=0·02) compared with the control group. We observed lower intakes of carbohydrates and added sugar in the intervention group compared with the control group after the intervention (P=0·002, P=0·01).

CONCLUSIONS: The intervention resulted in a lower energy intake, particularly from carbohydrates and added sugar after 15 months of intervention, suggesting that dietary intake can be changed in a healthier direction in children predisposed to obesity.