To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the association between residential or occupational short- and long-term exposure to odour pollution from industrial sources and the health status of the ...exposed population.
The searches were conducted in Medline, EMBASE and Scopus in April 2021. Exposure to an environmental odour from industrial sources in population resident near the source or in workers was considered. We considered outcomes for which there was a biological plausibility, such as wheezing and asthma, cough, headache, nausea and vomiting (primary outcomes). We also included stress-related symptoms and novel outcomes (e.g. mood states). Risk of bias was evaluated using the OHAT tool. For primary outcomes, when at least 3 studies provided effect estimates by comparing exposed subjects versus not exposed, we pooled the study-specific estimates of odour-related effect using random effects models. Heterogeneity was evaluated with Higgins I
.
Thirty studies were eligible for this review, mainly cross-sectional (n = 23). Only one study involved school-age children and two studies involved workers. Only five studies reported odour effects on objective laboratory or clinical outcomes. Animal Feeding Operations and waste were the most common industrial sources. The overall odds ratios in exposed versus not exposed population were 1.15 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.29) for headache (7 studies), 1.09 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.30) for nausea/vomiting (7 studies), and 1.27 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.44) for cough/phlegm (5 studies). Heterogeneity was a moderate concern. Overall, the body of evidence was affected by a definitely high risk of bias in exposure and outcome assessment since most studies used self-reported information.
Findings underline the public health importance of odour pollution for population living nearby industrial odour sources. The limited evidence for most outcomes supports the need for high quality epidemiological studies on the association between odour pollution and its effects on human health.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Background. Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) is frequent in childhood and may have long-term sequelae. By employing an evidence-based approach, this scoping review aims at identifying (a) early ...predictors of DLD; (b) the optimal age range for the use of screening and diagnostic tools; (c) effective diagnostic tools in preschool children. Methods. We considered systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and primary observational studies with control groups on predictive, sensitivity and specificity values of screening and diagnostic tools and psycholinguistic measures for the assessment of DLD in preschool children. We identified 37 studies, consisting of 10 systematic reviews and 27 primary studies. Results. Delay in gesture production, receptive and/or expressive vocabulary, syntactic comprehension, or word combination up to 30 months emerged as early predictors of DLD, a family history of DLD appeared to be a major risk factor, and low socioeconomic status and environmental input were reported as risk factors with lower predictive power. Optimal time for screening is suggested between age 2 and 3, for diagnosis around age 4. Because of the high variability of sensitivity and specificity values, joint use of standardized and psycholinguistic measures is suggested to increase diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions. Monitoring risk situations and employing caregivers’ reports, clinical assessment and multiple linguistic measures are fundamental for an early identification of DLD and timely interventions.
Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of ...these drugs.
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low.
At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.
Standard of Care (SoC) has been used with different significance across Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) on the treatment of Covid-19. In the context of a living systematic review on pharmacological ...interventions for COVID-19, we assessed the characteristics of the SoC adopted in the published RCTs.
We performed a systematic review searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to April 10, 2021. We included all RCTs comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo, or SoC. All trials selected have been classified as studies with SoC including treatments under investigation for COVID-19 (SoC+); studies with SoC without specifications regarding the potential therapies allowed (SoC-); studies including as control groups Placebo (P) or active controls (A+).
We included in our analysis 144 RCTs, comprising 78,319 patients. Most of these trials included SoC (108; 75.0%); some in all arms of the study (69.7%) or just as independent comparators (30.3%). Treatments under investigation for COVID-19 in other trials were included in the SoC (SoC+) in 67 cases (62.0%), Thirty-one different therapeutic agents (alone or in combination) were counted within the studies with SoC+: mostly hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (28), lopinavir/ritonavir (20) or azithromycin (16). No specification was given regarding treatment allowed in the control groups (SoC-) in 41 studies (38.0%).
Our analysis shows that the findings emerging from several clinical trials regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological intervention for COVID-19 might be jeopardized by the quality of control arms.
Language disorder is the most frequent developmental disorder in childhood and it has a significant negative impact on children's development. The goal of the present review was to systematically ...analyze the effectiveness of interventions in children with developmental language disorder (DLD) from an evidence-based perspective.
We considered systematic reviews, meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), control group cohort studies on any type of intervention aimed at improving children's skills in the phono-articulatory, phonological, semantic-lexical, and morpho-syntactic fields in preschool and primary school children (up to eight years of age) that were diagnosed with DLD. We identified 27 full-length studies, 26 RCT and one review.
Early intensive intervention in three- and four-year-old children has a positive effect on phonological expressive and receptive skills and acquisitions are maintained in the medium term. Less evidence is available on the treatment of expressive vocabulary (and no evidence on receptive vocabulary). Intervention on morphological and syntactic skills has effective results on expressive (but not receptive) skills; however, a number of inconsistent results have also been reported. Only one study reports a positive effect of treatment on inferential narrative skills. Limited evidence is also available on the treatment of meta-phonological skills. More studies investigated the effectiveness of interventions on general language skills, which now appears as a promising area of investigation, even though results are not all consistent.
The effectiveness of interventions over expressive and receptive phonological skills, morpho-syntactic skills, as well as inferential skills in narrative context underscores the importance that these trainings be implemented in children with DLD.
This guideline (GL) is aimed at providing a reference for the management of non-functioning, benign thyroid nodules causing local symptoms in adults outside of pregnancy.
This GL has been developed ...following the methods described in the Manual of the National Guideline System. For each question, the panel appointed by Associazione Medici Endocrinology (AME) identified potentially relevant outcomes, which were then rated for their impact on therapeutic choices. Only outcomes classified as "critical" and "important" were considered in the systematic review of evidence and only those classified as "critical" were considered in the formulation of recommendations.
The present GL contains recommendations about the respective roles of surgery and minimally invasive treatments for the management of benign symptomatic thyroid nodules. We suggest hemithyroidectomy plus isthmectomy as the first-choice surgical treatment, provided that clinically significant disease is not present in the contralateral thyroid lobe. Total thyroidectomy should be considered for patients with clinically significant disease in the contralateral thyroid lobe. We suggest considering thermo-ablation as an alternative option to surgery for patients with a symptomatic, solid, benign, single, or dominant thyroid nodule. These recommendations apply to outpatients, either in primary care or when referred to specialists.
The present GL is directed to endocrinologists, surgeons, and interventional radiologists working in hospitals, in territorial services, or private practice, general practitioners, and patients. The available data suggest that the implementation of this GL recommendations will result in the progressive reduction of surgical procedures for benign thyroid nodular disease, with a decreased number of admissions to surgical departments for non-malignant conditions and more rapid access to patients with thyroid cancer. Importantly, a reduction of indirect costs due to long-term replacement therapy and the management of surgical complications may also be speculated.
There is evidence that disparities exist in diabetes prevalence, access to diabetes care, diabetes-related complications, and the quality of diabetes care. A wide range of interventions has been ...implemented and evaluated to improve diabetes care. We aimed to review trials of quality improvement (QI) interventions aimed to reduce health inequities among people with diabetes in primary care and to explore the extent to which experimental studies addressed and reported equity issues.
Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled studies published between January 2005 and May 2016. We adopted the PROGRESS Plus framework, as a tool to explore differential effects of QI interventions across sociodemographic and economic factors.
From 1903 references fifty-eight randomized trials met the inclusion criteria (with 17.786 participants), mostly carried out in USA. The methodological quality was good for all studies. Almost all studies reported the age, gender/sex and race distribution of study participants. The majority of trials additionally used at least one further PROGRESS-Plus factor at baseline, with education being the most commonly used, followed by income (55%). Large variation was observed between these studies for type of interventions, target populations, and outcomes evaluated. Few studies examined differential intervention effects by PROGRESS-plus factors. Existing evidence suggests that some QI intervention delivered in primary care can improve diabetes-related health outcomes in social disadvantaged population subgroups such as ethnic minorities. However, we found very few studies comparing health outcomes between population subgroups and reporting differential effect estimates of QI interventions.
This review provides evidence that QI interventions for people with diabetes is feasible to implement and highly acceptable. However, more research is needed to understand their effective components as well as the adoption of an equity-oriented approach in conducting primary studies. Moreover, a wider variety of socio-economic characteristics such as social capital, place of residence, occupation, education, and religion should be addressed.
A significant number of people, following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, report persistent symptoms or new symptoms that are sustained over time, often affecting different body systems. This condition, ...commonly referred to as Long-COVID, requires a complex clinical management. In Italy new health facilities specifically dedicated to the diagnosis and care of Long-COVID were implemented. However, the activity of these clinical centers is highly heterogeneous, with wide variation in the type of services provided, specialistic expertise and, ultimately, in the clinical care provided. Recommendations for a uniform management of Long-COVID were therefore needed. Professionals from different disciplines (including general practitioners, specialists in respiratory diseases, infectious diseases, internal medicine, geriatrics, cardiology, neurology, pediatrics, and odontostomatology) were invited to participate, together with a patient representative, in a multidisciplinary Panel appointed to draft Good Practices on clinical management of Long-COVID. The Panel, after extensive literature review, issued recommendations on 3 thematic areas: access to Long-COVID services, clinical evaluation, and organization of the services. The Panel highlighted the importance of providing integrated multidisciplinary care in the management of patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and agreed that a multidisciplinary service, one-stop clinic approach could avoid multiple referrals and reduce the number of appointments. In areas where multidisciplinary services are not available, services may be provided through integrated and coordinated primary, community, rehabilitation and mental health services. Management should be adapted according to the patient's needs and should promptly address possible life-threatening complications. The present recommendations could provide guidance and support in standardizing the care provided to Long-COVID patients.
Audit and Feedback (A&F) is one of the most common strategies used to improve quality in healthcare. However, there is still lack of awareness regarding the enabling factors and barriers that could ...influence its effectiveness. The aim of this study was to develop a questionnaire to measure the knowledge, attitudes and behaviors of general practitioners (GPs) regarding A&F. The study was performed in the context of the EASY-NET program (project code NET-2016-02364191).
The survey was developed according to two steps. Firstly, a scoping review was performed in order to map the literature on the existing similar instruments with the aim of identifying the sub-domains and possible items to include in a preliminary version of the questionnaire. In the second phase, the questionnaire was reviewed by a multidisciplinary group of experts and administrated to a convenience sample in a pilot survey.
Ten papers were included in the scoping review. The survey target and development methodology were heterogenous among the studies. The knowledge, attitudes and behaviors domains were assessed in six, nine and seven studies, respectively. In the first step, 126 pertinent items were extracted and categorized as follows: 8 investigated knowledge, 93 investigated attitudes, and 25 investigated behaviors. Then, 2 sub-domains were identified for knowledge, 14 for attitudes and 7 for behavior. Based on these results, a first version of the survey was developed via consensus among two authors and then revised by the multidisciplinary group of experts in the field of A&F. The final version of the survey included 36 items: 8 in the knowledge domain, 19 in the attitudes domain and 9 in the behaviors domain. The results of the pilot study among 15 GPs suggested a good acceptability and item relevance and accuracy, with positive answers totaling 100% and 93.3% in the proposed questions.
The methodology used has shown to be a good strategy for the development of the survey. The survey will be administrated before and after the implementation of an A&F intervention to assess both baseline characteristics and changes after the intervention.
PDF
