| 1. |
- Forouzanfar, Mohammad H, et al.
(författare)
-
Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990-2013 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013.
- 2015
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 386:10010, s. 2287-2323
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factor study 2013 (GBD 2013) is the first of a series of annual updates of the GBD. Risk factor quantification, particularly of modifiable risk factors, can help to identify emerging threats to population health and opportunities for prevention. The GBD 2013 provides a timely opportunity to update the comparative risk assessment with new data for exposure, relative risks, and evidence on the appropriate counterfactual risk distribution.METHODS: Attributable deaths, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) have been estimated for 79 risks or clusters of risks using the GBD 2010 methods. Risk-outcome pairs meeting explicit evidence criteria were assessed for 188 countries for the period 1990-2013 by age and sex using three inputs: risk exposure, relative risks, and the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (TMREL). Risks are organised into a hierarchy with blocks of behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks at the first level of the hierarchy. The next level in the hierarchy includes nine clusters of related risks and two individual risks, with more detail provided at levels 3 and 4 of the hierarchy. Compared with GBD 2010, six new risk factors have been added: handwashing practices, occupational exposure to trichloroethylene, childhood wasting, childhood stunting, unsafe sex, and low glomerular filtration rate. For most risks, data for exposure were synthesised with a Bayesian meta-regression method, DisMod-MR 2.0, or spatial-temporal Gaussian process regression. Relative risks were based on meta-regressions of published cohort and intervention studies. Attributable burden for clusters of risks and all risks combined took into account evidence on the mediation of some risks such as high body-mass index (BMI) through other risks such as high systolic blood pressure and high cholesterol.FINDINGS: All risks combined account for 57·2% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 55·8-58·5) of deaths and 41·6% (40·1-43·0) of DALYs. Risks quantified account for 87·9% (86·5-89·3) of cardiovascular disease DALYs, ranging to a low of 0% for neonatal disorders and neglected tropical diseases and malaria. In terms of global DALYs in 2013, six risks or clusters of risks each caused more than 5% of DALYs: dietary risks accounting for 11·3 million deaths and 241·4 million DALYs, high systolic blood pressure for 10·4 million deaths and 208·1 million DALYs, child and maternal malnutrition for 1·7 million deaths and 176·9 million DALYs, tobacco smoke for 6·1 million deaths and 143·5 million DALYs, air pollution for 5·5 million deaths and 141·5 million DALYs, and high BMI for 4·4 million deaths and 134·0 million DALYs. Risk factor patterns vary across regions and countries and with time. In sub-Saharan Africa, the leading risk factors are child and maternal malnutrition, unsafe sex, and unsafe water, sanitation, and handwashing. In women, in nearly all countries in the Americas, north Africa, and the Middle East, and in many other high-income countries, high BMI is the leading risk factor, with high systolic blood pressure as the leading risk in most of Central and Eastern Europe and south and east Asia. For men, high systolic blood pressure or tobacco use are the leading risks in nearly all high-income countries, in north Africa and the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. For men and women, unsafe sex is the leading risk in a corridor from Kenya to South Africa.INTERPRETATION: Behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks can explain half of global mortality and more than one-third of global DALYs providing many opportunities for prevention. Of the larger risks, the attributable burden of high BMI has increased in the past 23 years. In view of the prominence of behavioural risk factors, behavioural and social science research on interventions for these risks should be strengthened. Many prevention and primary care policy options are available now to act on key risks.FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
|
|
| 2. |
- Halle-Smith, James M., et al.
(författare)
-
Perioperative interventions to reduce pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy : meta-analysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: The British journal of surgery. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1365-2168 .- 0007-1323. ; 109:9, s. 812-821
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Data on interventions to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) are conflicting. The aim of this study was to assimilate data from RCTs. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched systematically for RCTs evaluating interventions to reduce all grades of POPF or clinically relevant (CR) POPF after PD. Meta-analysis was undertaken for interventions investigated in multiple studies. A post hoc analysis of negative RCTs assessed whether these had appropriate statistical power. RESULTS: Among 22 interventions (7512 patients, 55 studies), 12 were assessed by multiple studies, and subjected to meta-analysis. Of these, external pancreatic duct drainage was the only intervention associated with reduced rates of both CR-POPF (odds ratio (OR) 0.40, 95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.80) and all-POPF (OR 0.42, 0.25 to 0.70). Ulinastatin was associated with reduced rates of CR-POPF (OR 0.24, 0.06 to 0.93). Invagination (versus duct-to-mucosa) pancreatojejunostomy was associated with reduced rates of all-POPF (OR 0.60, 0.40 to 0.90). Most negative RCTs were found to be underpowered, with post hoc power calculations indicating that interventions would need to reduce the POPF rate to 1 per cent or less in order to achieve 80 per cent power in 16 of 34 (all-POPF) and 19 of 25 (CR-POPF) studies respectively. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis supports a role for several interventions to reduce POPF after PD. RCTs in this field were often relatively small and underpowered, especially those evaluating CR-POPF.
|
|
| 3. |
- Pande, Rupaly, et al.
(författare)
-
Can trainees safely perform pancreatoenteric anastomosis? A systematic review, meta-analysis, and risk-adjusted analysis of postoperative pancreatic fistula
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Surgery (United States). - : Elsevier BV. - 0039-6060. ; 172:1, s. 319-328
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The complexity of pancreaticoduodenectomy and fear of morbidity, particularly postoperative pancreatic fistula, can be a barrier to surgical trainees gaining operative experience. This meta-analysis sought to compare the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatoenteric anastomosis by trainees or established surgeons. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula rates after pancreatoenteric anastomosis between trainee-led versus consultant/attending surgeons pooled using meta-analysis. Variation in rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula was further explored using risk-adjusted outcomes using published risk scores and cumulative sum control chart analysis in a retrospective cohort. Results: Across 14 cohorts included in the meta-analysis, trainees tended toward a lower but nonsignificant rate of all postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.77, P =.45) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.69, P =.37). However, there was evidence of case selection, with trainees being less likely to operate on patients with a pancreatic duct width <3 mm (odds ratio: 0.45, P =.05). Similarly, analysis of a retrospective cohort (N = 756 cases) found patients operated by trainees to have significantly lower predicted all postoperative pancreatic fistula (median: 20 vs 26%, P <.001) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (7 vs 9%, P =.020) rates than consultant/attending surgeons, based on preoperative risk scores. After adjusting for this on multivariable analysis, the risks of all postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 1.18, P =.604) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.85, P =.693) remained similar after pancreatoenteric anastomosis by trainees or consultant/attending surgeons. Conclusion: Pancreatoenteric anastomosis, when performed by trainees, is associated with acceptable outcomes. There is evidence of case selection among patients undergoing surgery by trainees; hence, risk adjustment provides a critical tool for the objective evaluation of performance.
|
|
| 4. |
- Pande, Rupaly, et al.
(författare)
-
External validation of postoperative pancreatic fistula prediction scores in pancreatoduodenectomy : a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: HPB. - : Elsevier BV. - 1365-182X. ; 24:3, s. 287-298
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Multiple risk scores claim to predict the probability of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy. It is unclear which scores have undergone external validation and are the most accurate. The aim of this study was to identify risk scores for POPF, and assess the clinical validity of these scores. Methods: Areas under receiving operator characteristic curve (AUROCs) were extracted from studies that performed external validation of POPF risk scores. These were pooled for each risk score, using intercept-only random-effects meta-regression models. Results: Systematic review identified 34 risk scores, of which six had been subjected to external validation, and so included in the meta-analysis, (Tokyo (N=2 validation studies), Birmingham (N=5), FRS (N=19), a-FRS (N=12), m-FRS (N=3) and ua-FRS (N=3) scores). Overall predictive accuracies were similar for all six scores, with pooled AUROCs of 0.61, 0.70, 0.71, 0.70, 0.70 and 0.72, respectively. Considerably heterogeneity was observed, with I2 statistics ranging from 52.1-88.6%. Conclusion: Most risk scores lack external validation; where this was performed, risk scores were found to have limited predictive accuracy. Consensus is needed for which score to use in clinical practice. Due to the limited predictive accuracy, future studies to derive a more accurate risk score are warranted.
|
|
