Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common source of perioperative morbidity and mortality.Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about preventing VTE in patients undergoing surgery.Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.Results: The panel agreed on 30 recommendations, including for major surgery in general (n = 8), orthopedic surgery (n = 7), major general surgery (n = 3), major neurosurgical procedures (n = 2), urological surgery (n = 4), cardiac surgery and major vascular surgery (n = 2), major trauma (n = 2), and major gynecological surgery (n = 2).Conclusions: For patients undergoing major surgery in general, the panel made conditional recommendations for mechanical prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, for pneumatic compression prophylaxis over graduated compression stockings, and against inferior vena cava filters. In patients undergoing total hip or total knee arthroplasty, conditional recommendations included using either aspirin or anticoagulants, as well as for a direct oral anticoagulant over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). For major general surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, using LMWH or unfractionated heparin. For major neurosurgery, transurethral resection of the prostate, or radical prostatectomy, the panel suggested against pharmacological prophylaxis. For major trauma surgery or major gynecological surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis.

Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to screen for prostate cancer. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, OpenGrey, LILACS, and Medline, and search of scientific meeting abstracts and trial registers to April 2018. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials comparing PSA screening with usual care in men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer. Data extraction At least two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of eligible studies. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. We used a random effects model to obtain pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) and, when feasible, conducted subgroup analyses (defined a priori) based on age, frequency of screening, family history, ethnicity, and socioeconomic level, as well as a sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach. Results Five randomised controlled trials, enrolling 721 718 men, were included. Studies varied with respect to screening frequency and intervals, PSA thresholds for biopsy, and risk of bias. When considering the whole body of evidence, screening probably has no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.96, 0.85 to 1.08; low certainty). Sensitivity analysis of studies at lower risk of bias (n=1) also demonstrates that screening seems to have no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 1.0, 0.98 to 1.02; moderate certainty) but may have a small effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.79, 0.69 to 0.91; moderate certainty). This corresponds to one less death from prostate cancer per 1000 men screened over 10 years. Direct comparative data on biopsy and treatment related complications from the included trials were limited. Using modelling, we estimated that for every 1000 men screened, approximately 1, 3, and 25 more men would be hospitalised for sepsis, require pads for urinary incontinence, and report erectile dysfunction, respectively. Conclusions At best, screening for prostate cancer leads to a small reduction in disease-specific mortality over 10 years but has does not affect overall mortality. Clinicians and patients considering PSA based screening need to weigh these benefits against the potential short and long term harms of screening, including complications from biopsies and subsequent treatment, as well as the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42016042347.

Objective To examine the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Electronic databases including Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, abstract proceedings, and reference lists up to July 2010. Review methods Included studies were randomised controlled trials comparing screening by prostate specific antigen with or without digital rectal examination versus no screening. Data abstraction and assessment of methodological quality with the GRADE approach was assessed by two independent reviewers and verified by the primary investigator. Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance estimates were calculated and pooled under a random effects model expressing data as relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. Results Six randomised controlled trials with a total of 387 286 participants that met inclusion criteria were analysed. Screening was associated with an increased probability of receiving a diagnosis of prostate cancer (relative risk 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.77; P<0.001) and stage I prostate cancer (1.95, 1.22 to 3.13; P=0.005). There was no significant effect of screening on death from prostate cancer (0.88, 0.71 to 1.09; P=0.25) or overall mortality (0.99, 0.97 to 1.01; P=0.44). All trials had one or more substantial methodological limitations. None provided data on the effects of screening on participants’ quality of life. Little information was provided about potential harms associated with screening. Conclusions The existing evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support the routine use of screening for prostate cancer with prostate specific antigen with or without digital rectal examination.