Informing the development of the SUCCEED reporting guideline for studies on the scaling of health interventions: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Quality reporting contributes to effective translation of health research in practice and policy. As an initial step in the development of a reporting guideline for scaling, the Standards for reporting stUdies of sCaling evidenCEd-informED interventions (SUCCEED), we performed a systematic review to identify relevant guidelines and compile a list of potential items.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review according to Cochrane method guidelines. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, from their respective inceptions. We also searched websites of relevant organizations and Google. We included any document that provided instructions or recommendations, e.g., reporting guideline, checklist, guidance, framework, standard; could inform the design or reporting of scaling interventions; and related to the health sector. We extracted characteristics of the included guidelines and assessed their methodological quality using a 3-item internal validity assessment tool. We extracted all items from the guidelines and classified them according to the main sections of reporting guidelines (title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and other information). We performed a narrative synthesis based on descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 7704 records screened (published between 1999 and 2019), we included 39 guidelines, from which data were extracted from 57 reports. Of the 39 guidelines, 17 were for designing scaling interventions and 22 for reporting implementation interventions. At least one female author was listed in 31 guidelines, and 21 first authors were female. None of the authors belonged to the patient stakeholder group. Only one guideline clearly identified a patient as having participated in the consensus process. More than half the guidelines (56%) had been developed using an evidence-based process. In total, 750 items were extracted from the 39 guidelines and distributed into the 7 main sections.

CONCLUSION

Relevant items identified could inform the development of a reporting guideline for scaling studies of evidence-based health interventions. This and our assessment of guidelines could contribute to better reporting in the science and practice of scaling.

Collaboration and Partnership in a 5-Level Engagement Framework for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Management: A Patient-oriented Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

The management of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) is complex, and patient engagement is essential for DFU healing, but it often comes down to the patient's consultation. Therefore, we sought to document patients' engagement in terms of collaboration and partnership for DFUs in 5 levels (direct care, organizational, policy level, research, and education), as well as strategies for patient engagement using an adapted engagement framework.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of the literature from inception to April 2022 using the Joanna Briggs Institute method and a patient-oriented approach. We also consulted DFU stakeholders to obtain feedback on the findings. The data were extracted using PROGRESS+ factors for an equity lens. The effects of engagement were described using Bodenheimer's quadruple aims for value-based care.

RESULTS

Of 4,211 potentially eligible records, 15 studies met our eligibility criteria, including 214 patients involved in engagement initiatives. Most studies were recent (9 of 15 since 2020) and involved patient engagement at the direct medical care level (8 of 15). Self-management (7 of 15) was the principal way to clinically engage the patients. None of the studies sought to define the direct influence of patient engagement on health outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Very few studies described patients' characteristics. Engaged patients were typically men from high-income countries, in their 50s, with poorly managed type 2 diabetes. We found little rigorous research of patient engagement at all levels for DFUs. There is an urgent need to improve the reporting of research in this area and to engage a diversity of patients.

Implementation strategies for knowledge products in primary healthcare: a systematic review of systematic reviews (Preprint)

Background

The underuse or overuse of knowledge products leads to waste in health care, and primary care is no exception.

Objective

This study aimed to characterize which knowledge products are frequently implemented, the implementation strategies used in primary care, and the implementation outcomes that are measured.

Methods

We performed a systematic review (SR) of SRs using the Cochrane systematic approach to include eligible SRs. The inclusion criteria were any primary care contexts, health care professionals and patients, any Effective Practice and Organization of Care implementation strategies of specified knowledge products, any comparators, and any implementation outcomes based on the Proctor framework. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ovid PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from their inception to October 2019 without any restrictions. We searched the references of the included SRs. Pairs of reviewers independently performed selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment by using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2. Data extraction was informed by the Effective Practice and Organization of Care taxonomy for implementation strategies and the Proctor framework for implementation outcomes. We performed a descriptive analysis and summarized the results by using a narrative synthesis.

Results

Of the 11,101 records identified, 81 (0.73%) SRs were included. Of these 81, a total of 47 (58%) SRs involved health care professionals alone. Moreover, 15 SRs had a high or moderate methodological quality. Most of them addressed 1 type of knowledge product (56/81, 69%), common clinical practice guidelines (26/56, 46%) or management, and behavioral or pharmacological health interventions (24/56, 43%). Mixed strategies were used for implementation (67/81, 83%), predominantly education-based (meetings in 60/81, 74%; materials distribution in 59/81, 73%; and academic detailing in 45/81, 56%), reminder (53/81, 36%), and audit and feedback (40/81, 49%) strategies. Education meetings (P=.13) and academic detailing (P=.11) seemed to be used more when the population was composed of health care professionals alone. Improvements in the adoption of knowledge products were the most commonly measured outcome (72/81, 89%). The evidence level was reported in 12% (10/81) of SRs on 62 outcomes (including 48 improvements in adoption), of which 16 (26%) outcomes were of moderate or high level.

Conclusions

Clinical practice guidelines and management and behavioral or pharmacological health interventions are the most commonly implemented knowledge products and are implemented through the mixed use of educational, reminder, and audit and feedback strategies. There is a need for a strong methodology for the SR of randomized controlled trials to explore their effectiveness and the entire cascade of implementation outcomes.

Tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The last decade has seen growing interest in scaling up of innovations to strengthen healthcare systems. However, the lack of appropriate methods for determining their potential for scale-up is an unfortunate global handicap. Thus, we aimed to review tools proposed for assessing the scalability of innovations in health.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review following the COSMIN methodology. We included any empirical research which aimed to investigate the creation, validation or interpretability of a scalability assessment tool in health. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and ERIC from their inception to 20 March 2019. We also searched relevant websites, screened the reference lists of relevant reports and consulted experts in the field. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted eligible reports and assessed the methodological quality of tools. We summarized data using a narrative approach involving thematic syntheses and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

We identified 31 reports describing 21 tools. Types of tools included criteria (47.6%), scales (33.3%) and checklists (19.0%). Most tools were published from 2010 onwards (90.5%), in open-access sources (85.7%) and funded by governmental or nongovernmental organizations (76.2%). All tools were in English; four were translated into French or Spanish (19.0%). Tool creation involved single (23.8%) or multiple (19.0%) types of stakeholders, or stakeholder involvement was not reported (57.1%). No studies reported involving patients or the public, or reported the sex of tool creators. Tools were created for use in high-income countries (28.6%), low- or middle-income countries (19.0%), or both (9.5%), or for transferring innovations from low- or middle-income countries to high-income countries (4.8%). Healthcare levels included public or population health (47.6%), primary healthcare (33.3%) and home care (4.8%). Most tools provided limited information on content validity (85.7%), and none reported on other measurement properties. The methodological quality of tools was deemed inadequate (61.9%) or doubtful (38.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

We inventoried tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health. Existing tools are as yet of limited utility for assessing scalability in health. More work needs to be done to establish key psychometric properties of these tools. Trial registration We registered this review with PROSPERO (identifier: CRD42019107095).

Sex and gender considerations in reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review

Background

Despite growing recognition of the importance of sex and gender considerations in health research, they are rarely integrated into research design and reporting. We sought to assess the integration of sex, as a biological attribute, and gender, as a socially constructed identity, in published reporting guidelines.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of published reporting guidelines listed on the EQUATOR website (www.equator-nework.org) from inception until December 2018. We selected all reporting guidelines (original and extensions) listed in the EQUATOR library. We used EndNote Citation Software to build a database of the statements of each guideline identified as a "full bibliographic reference" and retrieved the full texts. Reviewers independently extracted the data on use of sex and gender terms from the checklist/abstract/main text of guidelines. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis.

Results

A total of 407 reporting guidelines were included; they were published between 1995 and 2018. Of the 407 guidelines, 235 (57.7%) mentioned at least one of the sex- and gender-related words. In the checklist of the reporting guidelines (n = 363), “sex” and “gender” were mentioned in 50 (13.8%) and 40 (11%), respectively. Only one reporting guideline met our criteria (nonbinary, appropriate categorization, and non-interchangeability) for correct use of sex and gender concepts. Trends in the use of "sex" and "gender" in the checklists showed that the use of “sex” only started in 2003, while “gender” has been in use since 1996.

Conclusions

We assessed the integration of sex and gender in reporting guidelines based on the use of sex- and gender-related words. Our findings showed a low use and integration of sex and gender concepts and their incorrect use. Authors of reporting guidelines should reduce this gap for a better use of research knowledge.

Trial registration PROSPERO no. CRD42019136491.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13293-021-00404-0.

Omission of sex and gender considerations is a recurring deficiency in research design and reporting

Integration of sex and gender considerations in health research reporting guidelines is very low

Three criteria were used to assess correct use of sex and gender concepts

Only one reporting guideline met the three criteria

A call to action is made to address these deficiencies

Evidence on scaling in health and social care: protocol for a living umbrella review

BACKGROUND

There is a growing interest in scaling effective health innovations to promote equitable access to high-quality health services worldwide. However, multiple challenges persist in scaling innovations. In this study, we aim to summarize the scaling evidence in the health and social care literature and identify current knowledge gaps.

METHODS

We will conduct a living umbrella review according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual. We will consider all knowledge syntheses addressing scaling in health or social care (e.g., any setting, any clinical area) and conducted in a systematic way. We will search the following electronic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, PsychINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Sociological Abstract (Proquest), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), and Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global, from inception. Furthermore, we will conduct searches of the grey literature. No restriction regarding date or language will be applied. Each phase of the review will be processed by two independent reviewers. We will develop a data extraction form on Covidence. We will assess the methodological quality of the included reviews using AMSTAR2 and the risk of bias using ROBIS. Results will be presented in tabular form and accompanied by a narrative synthesis covering the traditional themes of scaling science that emerge from the analysis, such as coverage, range, and sustainability, as well as themes less covered in the literature, including reporting guidance, models, tools, barriers, and/or facilitators to scaling innovations, evidence regarding application in high-income or low-income countries, and end-user engagement. We will disseminate the findings via publications and through relevant networks.

DISCUSSION

The findings of the umbrella review will facilitate access to scaling evidence in the literature and help strengthen the science of scaling for researchers, policy makers, and program managers. Finally, this work will highlight important knowledge gaps and help prioritize future research questions.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on November 11, 2020 (registration number: CRD42020183774 ).

Application of Artificial Intelligence in Community-Based Primary Health Care: Systematic Scoping Review and Critical Appraisal

BACKGROUND

Research on the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into community-based primary health care (CBPHC) has highlighted several advantages and disadvantages in practice regarding, for example, facilitating diagnosis and disease management, as well as doubts concerning the unintended harmful effects of this integration. However, there is a lack of evidence about a comprehensive knowledge synthesis that could shed light on AI systems tested or implemented in CBPHC.

OBJECTIVE

We intended to identify and evaluate published studies that have tested or implemented AI in CBPHC settings.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic scoping review informed by an earlier study and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review framework and reported the findings according to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-Scoping Reviews) reporting guidelines. An information specialist performed a comprehensive search from the date of inception until February 2020, in seven bibliographic databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore. The selected studies considered all populations who provide and receive care in CBPHC settings, AI interventions that had been implemented, tested, or both, and assessed outcomes related to patients, health care providers, or CBPHC systems. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the identified records, read the selected full texts, and extracted data from the included studies using a validated extraction form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, and if this was not possible, the opinion of a third reviewer was sought. A third reviewer also validated all the extracted data.

RESULTS

We retrieved 22,113 documents. After the removal of duplicates, 16,870 documents were screened, and 90 peer-reviewed publications met our inclusion criteria. Machine learning (ML) (41/90, 45%), natural language processing (NLP) (24/90, 27%), and expert systems (17/90, 19%) were the most commonly studied AI interventions. These were primarily implemented for diagnosis, detection, or surveillance purposes. Neural networks (ie, convolutional neural networks and abductive networks) demonstrated the highest accuracy, considering the given database for the given clinical task. The risk of bias in diagnosis or prognosis studies was the lowest in the participant category (4/49, 4%) and the highest in the outcome category (22/49, 45%).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed variabilities in reporting the participants, types of AI methods, analyses, and outcomes, and highlighted the large gap in the effective development and implementation of AI in CBPHC. Further studies are needed to efficiently guide the development and implementation of AI interventions in CBPHC settings.

Extent and Predictors of Decision Regret among Informal Caregivers Making Decisions for a Loved One: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Informal caregivers often serve as decision makers for dependent or vulnerable individuals facing health care decisions. Decision regret is one of the most prevalent outcomes reported by informal caregivers who have made such decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To examine levels of decision regret and its predictors among informal caregivers who have made health-related decisions for a loved one.

DATA SOURCES

We performed a systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to November 2018. Participants were informal caregivers, and the outcome was decision regret as measured using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS).

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We performed a narrative synthesis and presented predictors of decision regret using a conceptual framework, dividing the predictors into decision antecedents, decision-making process, and decision outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 16 of 3003 studies identified. Most studies (n = 13) reported a mean DRS score ranging from 7.0 to 32.3 out of 100 (median = 14.3). The methodological quality of studies was acceptable. We organized predictors and their estimated effects (β) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as follows: decision antecedents (e.g., caregivers' desire to avoid the decision, OR 2.07, 95% CI [1.04-4.12], P = 0.04), decision-making process (e.g., caregivers' perception of effective decision making, β = 0.49 [0.05, 0.93], P < 0.01), and decision outcomes (e.g., incontinence, OR = 4.4 [1.1, 18.1], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This review shows that informal caregivers' level of decision regret is generally low but is high for some decisions. We also identified predictors of regret during different stages of the decision-making process. These findings may guide future research on improving caregivers' experiences.

Improving the usefulness of evidence concerning the effectiveness of implementation strategies for knowledge products in primary healthcare: protocol for a series of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

The literature on the implementation of knowledge products is extensive. However, this literature is still difficult to interpret for policymakers and other stakeholders when faced with choosing implementation strategies likely to bring about successful change in their health systems. This work has the particularity to examine the scope of this literature, and to clarify the effectiveness of implementation strategies for different knowledge products. Consequently, we aim to (1) determine the strengths and weaknesses of existing literature overviews; (2) produce a detailed portrait of the literature on implementation strategies for various knowledge products; and (3) assess the effectiveness of implementation strategies for each knowledge product identified and classify them.

METHODS

We will use a three-phase approach consisting of a critical analysis of existing literature overviews, a systematic review of systematic reviews, and a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We will follow the Cochrane Methodology for each of the three phases. Our eligibility criteria are defined following a PICOS approach: Population, individuals or stakeholders participating in healthcare delivery, specifically, healthcare providers, caregivers, and end users; Intervention, any type of strategy aiming to implement a knowledge product including, but not limited to, a decision support tool, a clinical practice guideline, a policy brief, or a decision-making tool, a one-pager, or a health intervention; Comparison, any comparator will be considered; Outcomes, phases 1 and 2-any outcome related to implementation strategies including, but not limited to, the measures of adherence/fidelity to the use of knowledge products, their acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, adaptability, implementation costs, penetration/reach and sustainability; phase 3-any additional outcome related to patients (psychosocial, health behavioral, and clinical outcomes) or healthcare professionals (behavioral and performance outcomes); Setting, primary healthcare has to be covered. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from their inception onwards. For each phase, two reviewers will independently perform the selection of studies, data extraction, and assess their methodological quality. We will analyze extracted data, and perform narrative syntheses, and meta-analyses when possible.

DISCUSSION

Our results could inform not only the overviews' methodology but also the development of an online platform for the implementation strategies of knowledge products. This platform could be useful for stakeholders in implementation science.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol registered on Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/eb8w2/.

Essential items for reporting of scaling studies of health interventions (SUCCEED): protocol for a systematic review and Delphi process

BACKGROUND

The lack of a reporting guideline for scaling of evidence-based practices (EBPs) studies has prompted the registration of the Standards for reporting studies assessing the impact of scaling strategies of EBPs (SUCCEED) with EQUATOR Network. The development of SUCCEED will be guided by the following main steps recommended for developing health research reporting guidelines.

METHODS

Executive Committee. We established a committee composed of members of the core research team and of an advisory group. Systematic review. The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework on 29 November 2019 (https://osf.io/vcwfx/). We will include reporting guidelines or other reports that may include items relevant to studies assessing the impact of scaling strategies. We will search the following electronic databases: EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, from inception. In addition, we will systematically search websites of EQUATOR and other relevant organizations. Experts in the field of reporting guidelines will also be contacted. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers. A narrative analysis will be conducted to compile a list of items for the Delphi exercise.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

We will invite panelists with expertise in: development of relevant reporting guidelines, methodologists, content experts, patient/member of the public, implementers, journal editors, and funders. We anticipated that three rounds of web-based Delphi consensus will be needed for an acceptable degree of agreement. We will use a 9-point scale (1 = extremely irrelevant to 9 = extremely relevant). Participants' response will be categorized as irrelevant (1-3), equivocal (4-6) and relevant (7-9). For each item, the consensus is reached if at least 80% of the participants' votes fall within the same category. The list of items from the final round will be discussed at face-to-face consensus meeting. Guideline validation. Participants will be authors of scaling studies. We will collect quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (semi-structured interview) data. Descriptive analyses will be conducted on quantitative data and constant comparative techniques on qualitative data.

DISCUSSION

Essential items for reporting scaling studies will contribute to better reporting of scaling studies and facilitate the transparency and scaling of evidence-based health interventions.

Assessment of the risk factors related to bovine spongiform encephalopathy

The Office International des Epizooties (OIE: World organisation for animal health) recommends that all OIE Member Countries determine the status of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in their cattle populations by conducting a risk assessment and meeting certain BSE surveillance criteria. The OIE has identified and listed the factors and criteria for this in the International Animal Health Code. The factors to be assessed include the consumption of meat-and-bone meal (MBM) by cattle, the importation of cattle and MBM which are potentially infected or contaminated with the BSE agent, the livestock population structure, the rendering processes and the animal feeding practices. In this paper, the authors present an overview of these risk factors and criteria, detailing the relevant components of each. In the second part of this paper, the authors provide a risk assessment to demonstrate the application of the OIE BSE guidelines. This is a probabilistic risk assessment of the factors related to BSE for Canada which conforms to the OIE approach to import risk analysis. The steps include the hazard identification, release, exposure and consequence assessments and the risk estimation. A scenario tree for the release and exposure assessments was used to model the events emanating from the initiating failure event of importing cattle potentially infected with BSE. The consequence assessment describes the costs and losses associated with the introduction and establishment of BSE in other countries. The risk estimate, integrating the release, exposure and consequence assessments, indicates a negligible probability that BSE was introduced and established in Canada; nevertheless, the economic consequences would have been extreme.

Evaluation of the hygienic performances of the processes for cleaning, dressing and cooling pig carcasses at eight packing plants

The hygienic performances of the processes for the production of cooled carcasses at eight pork packing plants were assessed from small sets of microbiological data. At each plant, a single sample was obtained from a randomly selected site on each of 25 randomly selected carcasses at each of three stages of processing, which were after polishing, after washing at the end of the dressing process, and after cooling. The aerobic bacteria, coliforms and Escherichia coli recovered from each sample were enumerated. When bacteria of one type were recovered from > or = 20 of 25 samples, the log mean number of those bacteria on the population of carcasses undergoing processing was estimated on the assumption that the set of counts was normally distributed. The log of the total number recovered from 25 samples was calculated for each set of counts. The log mean numbers of total aerobic bacteria recovered from the polished carcasses at different plants ranged from about 1.9 to 3.8 log cfu cm(-2). At six of the plants, the log mean numbers of total aerobes on the cooled carcasses did not differ substantially from the log mean numbers on the polished carcasses, but the log mean numbers on the cooled carcasses were substantially higher at one plant and substantially lower at another than on the polished carcasses. Coliforms and E. coli were recovered from too few samples in most sets from cooled carcasses for estimation of their log mean numbers. However, the log total numbers of coliforms and E. coli recovered indicated that substantial numbers of those organisms were added to carcasses during the dressing processes at four of the plants, and that the numbers on the carcasses were substantially reduced by the processes for cooling without spraying at two of the plants. At seven of the plants, the total numbers of coliforms and E. coli recovered from cooled carcasses were <3.1 and <2.2 log cfu 2500 cm(-2), respectively. The findings indicate that production processes for pig carcasses can be operated to give cooled carcasses with log mean numbers of total aerobes < 2 cm(-2), and log total numbers of coliforms and E. coli each < 1 2500 cm(-2).

[Comparison of host water wash and trimming of pork carcasses for reducing the level of bacterial contamination]

This study was carried out to evaluate the microbial contamination on pork carcasses after they had fallen on the floor in the cooler and also to evaluate the effectiveness of trimming and hot, high-pressure water washing (55 degrees C). A bacteriological analysis was done on 2 groups of 40 carcasses before and after trimming or washing, along with a group of 10 control carcasses. Results showed that the bacterial total count was higher (P = 0.01) on carcasses after they had fallen, but, in this study, no significant difference (P = 0.76) was found for total coliform contamination. Also, no significant difference was observed between total count for aerobic bacteria, total coliforms, and Escherichia coli before and after decontamination, no matter which technique was used. Neither trimming nor washing carcasses showed, in this study, a significant difference (P = 0.37) in the reduction of the total aerobic bacterial count on the pork carcasses analyzed (P = 0.65).

[Monitoring of microbial contamination of stick wound in swine carcasses]

This study was done to evaluate the microbial contamination by Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli, fecal coliforms, and total aerobic count of the stick wound of swine carcasses. The effectiveness of trimming the stick wound in the 2 Québec slaughterhouses visited was evaluated. A bacteriological analysis was done on 276 stick wounds. Results indicated that, before trimming, 0.9% stick wounds were contaminated by Salmonella spp. Contamination by coliforms was observed in 40.6% of samples, and 27.7% were positive for E. coli. After trimming the stick wounds, 1.1% were contaminated by Salmonella spp., 34.1% were contaminated by coliforms, and 26.2% were positive for E. coli. The results showed that trimming contributes to reducing significantly the bacterial total count at the site and that the bacterial load at this site was less important than that found on the brisket.

Secretion of interleukin-6 by human endometriotic cells and regulation by proinflammatory cytokines and sex steroids

Endometriosis is generally associated with an immunoinflammatory process that takes place in the peritoneal cavity of patients. Interleukin (IL)-6, a multifunctional cytokine involved in numerous immunological and proliferative processes, has been found at high concentrations in the peritoneal fluid of endometriosis patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate the ability of endometriotic cells to produce IL-y and to assess the regulation of its secretion by proinflammatory cytokines and sex steroids. Cultures of human endometriotic cells were exposed to different concentrations of cytokines and sex steroid hormones for varying periods of time. IL-6 secretion was measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Endometriotic cells spontaneously released IL-6 in culture. IL-1 beta and tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha (0.1-100.0 ng/ ml) potentiated IL-y secretion in a time- and dose-dependent manner. Interferon-gamma (0.4-400 ng/ml) induced a dose-related increase in IL-6 secretion and showed a synergistic effect on that secretion in combination with TNF-alpha (10 ng/ ml). Either spontaneous or cytokine-induced IL-6 secretion was inhibited by progesterone (10(-8)-10(-5) M) and danazol (10(-6) M), whereas oestradiol (10(-8)-10(-5) M) had a limited inhibitory effect. The antiprogestin RU486 (10(-8)-10(-4) M) antagonized the inhibitory effects of progesterone and danazol, but showed agonist action when used alone. These findings indicate that endometriotic tissue may actively contribute to the biological changes observed in the peritoneal fluid of endometriosis patients. They also provide new insights into the mechanisms of action of progesterone and those of danazol and RU486 used in the treatment of endometriosis.