The Women's Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI), a national coalition of women's health professional organizations and patient advocacy representatives, developed a recommendation for counseling midlife women aged 40 to 60 years with normal or overweight body mass index (BMI; 18.5 to 29.9 kg/m2) to maintain weight or limit weight gain to prevent obesity with the long-term goals of optimizing health, function, and well-being. This recommendation is intended to guide clinical practice and coverage of clinical preventive health services for the Health Resources and Services Administration and other stakeholders. Clinicians providing preventive health care to women in primary care settings are the target audience for this recommendation.

Despite high prevalence rates of obesity in the United States, no clinical guidelines exist for obesity prevention in midlife women who commonly experience weight gain.

Whereas diagnostic tests help detect the cause of signs and symptoms, prognostic tests assist in evaluating the probable course of the disease and future outcome. Studies to evaluate prognostic tests are longitudinal, which introduces sources of bias different from those for diagnostic accuracy studies. At present, systematic reviews of prognostic tests often use the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) tool to assess risk of bias and applicability of included studies because no equivalent instrument exists for prognostic accuracy studies. QUAPAS (Quality Assessment of Prognostic Accuracy Studies) is an adaptation of QUADAS-2 for prognostic accuracy studies. Questions likely to identify bias were evaluated in parallel and collated from QUIPS (Quality in Prognosis Studies) and PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool) and paired to the corresponding question (or domain) in QUADAS-2. A steering group conducted and reviewed 3 rounds of modifications before arriving at the final set of domains and signaling questions. QUAPAS follows the same steps as QUADAS-2: Specify the review question, tailor the tool, draw a flow diagram, judge risk of bias, and identify applicability concerns. Risk of bias is judged across the following 5 domains: participants, index test, outcome, flow and timing, and analysis. Signaling questions assist the final judgment for each domain. Applicability concerns are assessed for the first 4 domains. The authors used QUAPAS in parallel with QUADAS-2 and QUIPS in a systematic review of prognostic accuracy studies. QUAPAS improved the assessment of the flow and timing domain and flagged a study at risk of bias in the new analysis domain. Judgment of risk of bias in the analysis domain was challenging because of sparse reporting of statistical methods.

Contemporary data are needed about the utility of cannabinoids in chronic pain.

The effectiveness and harms of contraceptive counseling and provision interventions are unclear.

Randomized controlled trials established the cardiac protection of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors among adults with type 2 diabetes. New evidence suggests that these results could extend to people without diabetes.

Motivational interviewing (MI) is potentially useful in management of overweight and obesity, but staff training and increased delivery time are barriers, and its effectiveness independent of other behavioral components is unclear.

Remdesivir is approved for the treatment of adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the diagnosis and management of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis in adults. This guideline is based on current best available evidence about benefits and harms, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences.

Clinicians need to better understand the value of computed tomography (CT) imaging and nonsurgical treatment options to manage acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis.

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the role of colonoscopy for diagnostic evaluation of colorectal cancer (CRC) after a presumed diagnosis of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis and on the role of pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and elective surgical interventions to prevent recurrence after initial treatment of acute complicated and uncomplicated left-sided colonic diverticulitis. This guideline is based on the current best available evidence about benefits and harms, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences.

The value of interventions used after acute colonic diverticulitis is unclear.

How diagnostic strategies for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) perform in relevant patient subgroups defined by sex, age, cancer, and previous venous thromboembolism (VTE) is unknown.

The long-term risk for major bleeding in patients receiving extended (beyond the initial 3 to 6 months) anticoagulant therapy for a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) is uncertain.

Use of robot-assisted surgery has increased dramatically since its advent in the 1980s, and nearly all surgical subspecialties have adopted it. However, whether it has advantages compared with laparoscopy or open surgery is unknown.

Dyspnea is a common and often debilitating symptom with a complex diagnostic work-up.

Multiple candidate vaccines to prevent COVID-19 have entered large-scale phase 3 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials, and several have demonstrated substantial short-term efficacy. At some point after demonstration of substantial efficacy, placebo recipients should be offered the efficacious vaccine from their trial, which will occur before longer-term efficacy and safety are known. The absence of a placebo group could compromise assessment of longer-term vaccine effects. However, by continuing follow-up after vaccination of the placebo group, this study shows that placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy can be mathematically derived by assuming that the benefit of vaccination over time has the same profile for the original vaccine recipients and the original placebo recipients after their vaccination. Although this derivation provides less precise estimates than would be obtained by a standard trial where the placebo group remains unvaccinated, this proposed approach allows estimation of longer-term effect, including durability of vaccine efficacy and whether the vaccine eventually becomes harmful for some. Deferred vaccination, if done open-label, may lead to riskier behavior in the unblinded original vaccine group, confounding estimates of long-term vaccine efficacy. Hence, deferred vaccination via blinded crossover, where the vaccine group receives placebo and vice versa, would be the preferred way to assess vaccine durability and potential delayed harm. Deferred vaccination allows placebo recipients timely access to the vaccine when it would no longer be proper to maintain them on placebo, yet still allows important insights about immunologic and clinical effectiveness over time.