Dorthe Dideriksen

First-Trimester Exposure to Methylphenidate: A Population-Based Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE The use of methylphenidate to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder has risen dramatically in Western countries, and it is increasingly used by adults, including women of childbearing age. Very little is known about potential hazards of in utero exposure to methylphenidate. We conducted this study to estimate the risk of major congenital malformations following first-trimester in utero exposure to methylphenidate. METHOD Data from 2005 to 2012 were extracted from the Danish National Patient Register, the Danish National Prescription Registry, the Medical Birth Registry, and the Danish Civil Registration System. Exposure was defined as having redeemed 1 or more prescriptions for methylphenidate within a time window defined as 14 days before the beginning of the first trimester up to the end of the first trimester. Each exposed subject was propensity score-matched to 10 unexposed subjects with respect to maternal age, smoking status, body mass index, length of education, calendar year of completion of pregnancy, and concomitant use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, anxiolytics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. RESULTS We included 222 exposed and 2,220 unexposed pregnancies in the analysis. There was no statistically significant increase in major malformations (point prevalence ratio = 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-1.8) or cardiac malformations (point prevalence ratio = 0.9; 95% CI, 0.2-3.0). Sensitivity analyses using different definitions of exposure or previous users of methylphenidate as the unexposed comparison cohort yielded comparable results. CONCLUSIONS First-trimester in utero exposure to methylphenidate does not appear to be associated with a substantially (ie, more than 2-fold) increased overall risk of major congenital malformations.

Acetaminophen for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review on Efficacy

Acetaminophen (paracetamol) is the most commonly used analgesic worldwide and recommended as first-line treatment in all pain conditions by WHO. We performed a systematic literature review to evaluate the efficacy of acetaminophen when used for chronic pain conditions. Applying three broad search strategies for acetaminophen use in chronic pain in both Embase and PubMed, 1551 hits were obtained. After cross-reference searches of both trials and 38 reviews, seven studies comparing acetaminophen in continuous dosing regimens of more than 2 weeks with placebo were included. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. All studies were conducted in patients with hip- or knee osteoarthritis and six of seven studies had observation periods of less than 3 months. All included studies showed no or little efficacy with dubious clinical relevance. In conclusion, there is little evidence to support the efficacy of acetaminophen treatment in patients with chronic pain conditions. Assessment of continuous efficacy in the many patients using acetaminophen worldwide is recommended.

SearCh for humourIstic and Extravagant acroNyms and Thoroughly Inappropriate names For Important Clinical trials (SCIENTIFIC): qualitative and quantitative systematic study

Objectives To describe the development of acronym use across five major medical specialties and to evaluate the technical and aesthetic quality of the acronyms. Design Acronyms obtained through a literature search of Pubmed.gov followed by a standardised assessment of acronym quality (BEAUTY and CHEATING criteria). Participants Randomised controlled trials within psychiatry, rheumatology, pulmonary medicine, endocrinology, and cardiology published between 2000 and 2012. Main outcome measures Prevalence proportion of acronyms and composite quality score for acronyms over time. Results 14 965 publications were identified, of which 18.3% (n=2737) contained an acronym in the title. Acronym use was more common among cardiological studies than among the other four medical specialties (40% v 8-15% in 2012, P<0.001). Except for within cardiology, the prevalence of acronyms increased over time, with the average prevalence proportion among the remaining four specialties increasing from 4.0% to 12.4% from 2000 to 2012 (P<0.001). The median combined acronym quality score decreased significantly over the study period (P<0.001), from a median 9.25 in 2000 to 5.50 in 2012. Conclusion From 2000 to 2012 the prevalence of acronyms in trial reports increased, coinciding with a substantial decrease in the technical and aesthetic quality of the acronyms. Strict enforcement of current guidelines on acronym construction by journal editors is necessary to ensure the proper use of acronyms in the future.