| 1. |
- Charalampous, P., et al.
(författare)
-
Methodological considerations in injury burden of disease studies across Europe: a systematic literature review
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Bmc Public Health. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2458. ; 22:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Calculating the disease burden due to injury is complex, as it requires many methodological choices. Until now, an overview of the methodological design choices that have been made in burden of disease (BoD) studies in injury populations is not available. The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify existing injury BoD studies undertaken across Europe and to comprehensively review the methodological design choices and assumption parameters that have been made to calculate years of life lost (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLD) in these studies. Methods We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, and the grey literature supplemented by handsearching, for BoD studies. We included injury BoD studies that quantified the BoD expressed in YLL, YLD, and disability-adjusted life years (DALY) in countries within the European Region between early-1990 and mid-2021. Results We retrieved 2,914 results of which 48 performed an injury-specific BoD assessment. Single-country independent and Global Burden of Disease (GBD)-linked injury BoD studies were performed in 11 European countries. Approximately 79% of injury BoD studies reported the BoD by external cause-of-injury. Most independent studies used the incidence-based approach to calculate YLDs. About half of the injury disease burden studies applied disability weights (DWs) developed by the GBD study. Almost all independent injury studies have determined YLL using national life tables. Conclusions Considerable methodological variation across independent injury BoD assessments was observed; differences were mainly apparent in the design choices and assumption parameters towards injury YLD calculations, implementation of DWs, and the choice of life table for YLL calculations. Development and use of guidelines for performing and reporting of injury BoD studies is crucial to enhance transparency and comparability of injury BoD estimates across Europe and beyond.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Pires, SM, et al.
(författare)
-
Burden of Disease of COVID-19: Strengthening the Collaboration for National Studies
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in public health. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2296-2565. ; 10, s. 907012-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Quantifying the combined impact of morbidity and mortality is a key enabler to assessing the impact of COVID-19 across countries and within countries relative to other diseases, regions, or demographics. Differences in methods, data sources, and definitions of mortality due to COVID-19 may hamper comparisons. We describe efforts to support countries in estimating the national-level burden of COVID-19 using disability-adjusted life years.MethodsThe European Burden of Disease Network developed a consensus methodology, as well as a range of capacity-building activities to support burden of COVID-19 studies. These activities have supported 11 national studies so far, with study periods between January 2020 and December 2021.ResultsNational studies dealt with various data gaps and different assumptions were made to face knowledge gaps. Still, they delivered broadly comparable results that allow for interpretation of consistencies, as well as differences in the quantified direct health impact of the pandemic.DiscussionHarmonized efforts and methodologies have allowed for comparable estimates and communication of results. Future studies should evaluate the impact of interventions, and unravel the indirect health impact of the COVID-19 crisis.
|
|
| 5. |
- Pallari, E., et al.
(författare)
-
Lung cancer research and its citation on clinical practice guidelines
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Lung Cancer. - : Elsevier Ireland Ltd. - 0169-5002 .- 1872-8332. ; 154, s. 44-50
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The impact of medical research is usually judged on the basis of citations in the serial literature. A better test of its utility is through its contribution to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat illness. This study aimed to compare the parameters of lung cancer research papers with those cited as references in lung cancer CPGs from 16 countries, and the Cochrane Collaboration. These comparisons were mainly based on bibliographic data compiled from the Web of Science (WoS).Methodology: We examined 7357 references (of which 4491 were unique) cited in a total of 77 lung cancer CPGs, and compared them with 73,214 lung cancer papers published in the WoS between 2004 and 2018.Results: References used by lung CPGs were much more clinical than the overall body of research papers on this cancer, and their authors predominantly came from smaller northern European countries. However, the leading institutions whose papers were cited the most on these CPGs were from the USA, notably the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. The types of research cited by the CPGs were primarily clinical trials, as well as three treatment modalities (chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery). Genetics, palliative care and quality of life were largely neglected. The median time gap between papers cited on a lung CPG and its publication was 3.5 years longer than for WoS citations.Conclusions: Analysis of the references on CPGs allows an alternative means of research evaluation, and one that may be more appropriate for clinical research than citations in academic journals. Own-country references show the direct contribution of research to a country's health care, and other-country references show the esteem in which this research has been held internationally. © 2021 King's College London
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
