UNASSIGNED: Recently, observational studies have reported that gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is commonly associated with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but the causal relationship is unclear.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a two-sample Mendelian randomization study using summary data from genome-wide association studies (GWASs) to explore a causal relationship between GERD (N cases = 129,080) and IBS (N cases = 4,605) of European ancestry. Furthermore, the inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method and a series of sensitivity analyses were used to assess the accuracy and confidence of our results.
UNASSIGNED: We found a significant association of GERD with IBS (NSNP = 74; OR: 1.375; 95% CI: 1.164-1.624; p < 0.001). Reverse MR analysis showed no evidence of a causal association for IBS with GERD (NSNP = 6; OR: 0.996; 95% CI: 0.960-1.034; p = 0.845).
UNASSIGNED: This study provides evidence that the presence of GERD increases the risk of developing IBS, and it is observed from the reverse MR results that IBS did not increase the risk of GERD.

Objective: The use of qualitative methods for investigating causation has been controversial ever since the \"paradigm wars\" of the 1980s. Quantitative and experimental researchers have largely dismissed the relevance of qualitative research for causal investigations, while many qualitative researchers have rejected the concept of causation entirely. However, a growing number of scholars, in both research methods and philosophy, have proposed an alternative perspective, one that sees quantitative and qualitative approaches as having complementary strengths and limitations in understanding causation. In this article, we consider this perspective in relation to the study of causality in psychotherapy research. Method: This paper reviews and integrates key descriptions of the mechanisms for identifying causal processes using qualitative research. Results: An overview of how qualitative methods study causation is presented, considering its implications for both identifying causality and for generalizing causal conclusions. Conclusion: The paper holds relevance for establishing outcomes caused by psychotherapy treatments and for developing clinical practice guidance for the field.

BACKGROUND: Statin prescribing should be based on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, but evidence suggests overtreatment of low-risk groups and undertreatment of high-risk groups.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between CVD risk scoring in primary care and initiation of statins for the primary prevention of CVD, and the effect of changes to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance in 2014.
METHODS: Historical cohort study using UK electronic primary care records.
METHODS: A cohort was created of statin-naïve patients without CVD between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2015. CVD risk scores (calculated using QRISK2 available from 2012) and statin initiations were identified. Rates of CVD risk score recording were calculated and relationships between CVD risk category (low-, intermediate-, and high-risk: <10%, 10-19.9%, and ≥20% 10-year CVD risk) and statin initiation were analysed.
RESULTS: A total of 1.4 million patients were identified from 248 practices. Of these, 151 788 had a recorded CVD risk score since 2012 (10.67%) and 217 860 were initiated on a statin (15.31%). Among patients initiated on a statin after 2012, 27.1% had a documented QRISK2 score: 2.7% of low-risk, 13.8% of intermediate-risk, and 35.0% of high-risk patients were initiated on statins. Statin initiation rates halved from a peak in 2006. After the 2014 NICE guidelines, statin initiation rates declined in high-risk patients but increased in intermediate-risk patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Most patients initiated on statins had no QRISK2 score recorded. Most patients at high risk of CVD were not initiated on statins. One in six statin initiations were to low-risk patients indicating significant overtreatment. Initiations of statins in intermediate-risk patients rose after NICE guidelines were updated in 2014.

Clinical guidelines are derived from best research evidence and aim to: improve quality of non-specific low back pain (nsLBP) management and identify patients at risk of suffering chronic pain. However, guideline discordant attitudes and beliefs have been identified in healthcare students and practitioners, including osteopaths.
A qualitative approach with elements of grounded theory was used to explore underlying attitudes and beliefs of practitioners/students working in a British osteopathic education institution. All participants rejected guideline recommendations for managing nsLBP. A constant comparative method was used to code and analyse emergent themes from transcript data.
Purposive sampling identified 5 clinic tutors and 7 students; all participated in semi-structured interviews.
Our central theme was a \'Precedence of Osteopathy\' over medicine and other manual therapies. Three subthemes were: 1) beliefs about self; 2) perceptions of others; 3) attitudes to guidelines and research.
Participants possess a strong professional identity fostered by their education. This bestows autonomy, authority and distinctness upon them. The central theme was modelled as a lens through which participants viewed research: the evidence pyramid appears inverted, explaining why participants value expert opinion above all other evidence. Guidelines and research are perceived to threaten professional identity. In contractual situations that oblige practitioners to follow guidelines management, perhaps reflecting a pragmatic response to health-care market forces, clinical practice is modified. Developing further understanding of osteopaths\' attitudes and beliefs and behaviour in respect of evidence-based guidance in education is important to enhance the quality of clinical practice in osteopathy.