-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Specific kinds of beds, overlays and mattresses are widely used with the aim of preventing and treating pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and on increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To assess the relative effects of different types of beds, overlays and mattresses for reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To cumulatively rank the different treatment options of beds, overlays and mattresses in order of their effectiveness in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment.
METHODS
In July 2020, we searched the Cochrane Library. Cochrane Reviews reporting the effectiveness of beds, mattresses or overlays for preventing or treating pressure ulcers were eligible for inclusion in this overview. Two review authors independently screened search results and undertook data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROBIS tool. We summarised the reported evidence in an overview of reviews. Where possible, we included the randomised controlled trials from each included review in network meta-analyses. We assessed the relative effectiveness of beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing or treating pressure ulcers and their probabilities of being, comparably, the most effective treatment. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We include six Cochrane Reviews in this overview of reviews, all at low or unclear risk of bias. Pressure ulcer prevention: four reviews (of 68 studies with 18,174 participants) report direct evidence for 27 pairwise comparisons between 12 types of support surface on the following outcomes: pressure ulcer incidence, time to pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Pressure ulcer incidence: our overview includes direct evidence for 27 comparisons that mostly (19/27) have very low-certainty evidence concerning reduction of pressure ulcer risk. We included 40 studies (12,517 participants; 1298 participants with new ulcers) in a network meta-analysis involving 13 types of intervention. Data informing the network are sparse and this, together with the high risk of bias in most studies informing the network, means most network contrasts (64/78) yield evidence of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces (e.g. static air overlays) (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.75), alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (e.g. alternating pressure air mattresses, large-celled ripple mattresses) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93), and reactive gel surfaces (e.g. gel pads used on operating tables) (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.01) may reduce pressure ulcer incidence. The ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness is also of very low certainty for all interventions. It is unclear which treatment is best for preventing ulceration. (2) Time to pressure ulcer incidence: four reviews had direct evidence on this outcome for seven comparisons. We included 10 studies (7211 participants; 699 participants with new ulcers) evaluating six interventions in a network meta-analysis. Again, data from most network contrasts (13/15) are of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces may reduce the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers (hazard ratio (HR) 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.05). The ranking of all support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers in terms of time to healing is uncertain. (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for three comparisons. For preventing pressure ulcers, alternating pressure air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (moderate-certainty evidence). Pressure ulcer treatment: two reviews (of 12 studies with 972 participants) report direct evidence for five comparisons on: complete pressure ulcer healing, time to complete pressure ulcer healing, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Complete pressure ulcer healing: our overview includes direct evidence for five comparisons. There is uncertainty about the relative effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on ulcer healing. The corresponding network meta-analysis (with four studies, 397 participants) had only three direct contrasts and a total of six network contrasts. Again, most network contrasts (5/6) have very low-certainty evidence. There was low-certainty evidence that more people with pressure ulcers may heal completely using reactive air surfaces than using foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80). We are uncertain which surfaces have the highest probability of being the most effective (all very low-certainty evidence). (2) Time to complete pressure ulcer healing: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have healed pressure ulcers compared with those using foam surfaces in long-term care settings (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence). (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use in long-term care settings (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and may increase complete ulcer healing. Compared with foam surfaces, alternating pressure air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and are probably more cost-effective in preventing pressure ulcers. Compared with foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk, particularly for people in operating rooms and long-term care settings. There are uncertainties for the relative effectiveness of other support surfaces for preventing and treating pressure ulcers, and their efficacy ranking. More high-quality research is required; for example, for the comparison of reactive air surfaces with alternating pressure air surfaces. Future studies should consider time-to-event outcomes and be designed to minimise any risk of bias.
Topics: Bedding and Linens; Beds; Humans; Incidence; Network Meta-Analysis; Pressure Ulcer; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34398473
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013761.pub2 -
JAMA Network Open Jun 2020Knowledge of whether serious adverse pregnancy outcomes are associated with increasingly widespread effects of climate change in the US would be crucial for the...
IMPORTANCE
Knowledge of whether serious adverse pregnancy outcomes are associated with increasingly widespread effects of climate change in the US would be crucial for the obstetrical medical community and for women and families across the country.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate prenatal exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5), ozone, and heat, and the association of these factors with preterm birth, low birth weight, and stillbirth.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
This systematic review involved a comprehensive search for primary literature in Cochrane Library, Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov website, and MEDLINE. Qualifying primary research studies included human participants in US populations that were published in English between January 1, 2007, and April 30, 2019. Included articles analyzed the associations between air pollutants or heat and obstetrical outcomes. Comparative observational cohort studies and cross-sectional studies with comparators were included, without minimum sample size. Additional articles found through reference review were also considered. Articles analyzing other obstetrical outcomes, non-US populations, and reviews were excluded. Two reviewers independently determined study eligibility. The Arskey and O'Malley scoping review framework was used. Data extraction was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.
FINDINGS
Of the 1851 articles identified, 68 met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 32 798 152 births were analyzed, with a mean (SD) of 565 485 (783 278) births per study. A total of 57 studies (48 of 58 [84%] on air pollutants; 9 of 10 [90%] on heat) showed a significant association of air pollutant and heat exposure with birth outcomes. Positive associations were found across all US geographic regions. Exposure to PM2.5 or ozone was associated with increased risk of preterm birth in 19 of 24 studies (79%) and low birth weight in 25 of 29 studies (86%). The subpopulations at highest risk were persons with asthma and minority groups, especially black mothers. Accurate comparisons of risk were limited by differences in study design, exposure measurement, population demographics, and seasonality.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This review suggests that increasingly common environmental exposures exacerbated by climate change are significantly associated with serious adverse pregnancy outcomes across the US.
Topics: Air Pollution; Female; Hot Temperature; Humans; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Maternal Exposure; Observational Studies as Topic; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Stillbirth; United States
PubMed: 32556259
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8243 -
Environmental Health Perspectives Sep 2014Particulate matter (PM) in outdoor air pollution was recently designated a Group I carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Particulate matter (PM) in outdoor air pollution was recently designated a Group I carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This determination was based on the evidence regarding the relationship of PM2.5 and PM10 to lung cancer risk; however, the IARC evaluation did not include a quantitative summary of the evidence.
OBJECTIVE
Our goal was to provide a systematic review and quantitative summary of the evidence regarding the relationship between PM and lung cancer.
METHODS
We conducted meta-analyses of studies examining the relationship of exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 with lung cancer incidence and mortality. In total, 18 studies met our inclusion criteria and provided the information necessary to estimate the change in lung cancer risk per 10-μg/m3 increase in exposure to PM. We used random-effects analyses to allow between-study variability to contribute to meta-estimates.
RESULTS
The meta-relative risk for lung cancer associated with PM2.5 was 1.09 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.14). The meta-relative risk of lung cancer associated with PM10 was similar, but less precise: 1.08 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.17). Estimates were robust to restriction to studies that considered potential confounders, as well as subanalyses by exposure assessment method. Analyses by smoking status showed that lung cancer risk associated with PM2.5 was greatest for former smokers [1.44 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.22)], followed by never-smokers [1.18 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.39)], and then current smokers [1.06 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.15)]. In addition, meta-estimates for adenocarcinoma associated with PM2.5 and PM10 were 1.40 (95% CI: 1.07, 1.83) and 1.29 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.63), respectively.
CONCLUSION
The results of these analyses, and the decision of the IARC Working Group to classify PM and outdoor air pollution as carcinogenic (Group 1), further justify efforts to reduce exposures to air pollutants that can arise from many sources.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Air Pollutants; Environmental Exposure; Humans; Incidence; Lung Neoplasms; Particle Size; Particulate Matter; Risk Factors; Smoking
PubMed: 24911630
DOI: 10.1289/ehp/1408092 -
Environment International Oct 2020As new scientific evidence on health effects of air pollution is generated, air quality guidelines need to be periodically updated. The objective of this review is to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
As new scientific evidence on health effects of air pollution is generated, air quality guidelines need to be periodically updated. The objective of this review is to support the derivation of updated guidelines by the World Health Organization (WHO) by performing a systematic review of evidence of associations between long-term exposure to particulate matter with diameter under 2.5 µm (PM) and particulate matter with diameter under 10 µm (PM), in relation to all-cause and cause-specific mortality. As there is especially uncertainty about the relationship at the low and high end of the exposure range, the review needed to provide an indication of the shape of the concentration-response function (CRF). We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from database inception to 9 October 2018. Articles were checked for eligibility by two reviewers. We included cohort and case-control studies on outdoor air pollution in human populations using individual level data. In addition to natural-cause mortality, we evaluated mortality from circulatory diseases (ischemic heart disease (IHD) and cerebrovascular disease (stroke) also specifically), respiratory diseases (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and acute lower respiratory infection (ALRI) also specifically) and lung cancer. A random-effect meta-analysis was performed when at least three studies were available for a specific exposure-outcome pair. Risk of bias was assessed for all included articles using a specifically developed tool coordinated by WHO. Additional analyses were performed to assess consistency across geographic region, explain heterogeneity and explore the shape of the CRF. An adapted GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) assessment of the body of evidence was made using a specifically developed tool coordinated by WHO. A large number (N = 107) of predominantly cohort studies (N = 104) were included after screening more than 3000 abstracts. Studies were conducted globally with the majority of studies from North America (N = 62) and Europe (N = 25). More studies used PM (N = 71) as the exposure metric than PM (N = 42). PM was significantly associated with all causes of death evaluated. The combined Risk Ratio (RR) for PM and natural-cause mortality was 1.08 (95%CI 1.06, 1.09) per 10 µg/m. Meta analyses of studies conducted at the low mean PM levels (<25, 20, 15, 12, 10 µg/m) yielded RRs that were similar or higher compared to the overall RR, consistent with the finding of generally linear or supra-linear CRFs in individual studies. Pooled RRs were almost identical for studies conducted in North America, Europe and Western Pacific region. PM was significantly associated with natural-cause and most but not all causes of death. Application of the risk of bias tool showed that few studies were at a high risk of bias in any domain. Application of the adapted GRADE tool resulted in an assessment of "high certainty of evidence" for PM with all assessed endpoints except for respiratory mortality (moderate). The evidence was rated as less certain for PM and cause-specific mortality ("moderate" for circulatory, IHD, COPD and "low" for stroke mortality. Compared to the previous global WHO evaluation, the evidence base has increased substantially. However, studies conducted in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) are still limited. There is clear evidence that both PM and PM were associated with increased mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and lung cancer. Associations remained below the current WHO guideline exposure level of 10 µg/m for PM. Systematic review registration number (PROSPERO ID): CRD42018082577.
Topics: Air Pollutants; Air Pollution; Cause of Death; Environmental Exposure; Europe; Humans; North America; Particulate Matter
PubMed: 32703584
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105974 -
Environment International Mar 2017The question of whether children's exposure to traffic-related air pollution (TRAP) contributes to their development of asthma is unresolved. We conducted a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
The question of whether children's exposure to traffic-related air pollution (TRAP) contributes to their development of asthma is unresolved. We conducted a systematic review and performed meta-analyses to analyze the association between TRAP and asthma development in childhood.
DATA SOURCES
We systematically reviewed epidemiological studies published until 8 September 2016 and available in the Embase, Ovid MEDLINE (R), and Transport databases.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS
We included studies that examined the association between children's exposure to TRAP metrics and their risk of 'asthma' incidence or lifetime prevalence, from birth to age 18years old.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
We extracted key characteristics of each included study using a predefined data items template and these were tabulated. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists to assess the validity of each included study. Where four or more independent risk estimates were available for a continuous pollutant exposure, we conducted overall and age-specific meta-analyses, and four sensitivity analyses for each summary meta-analytic exposure-outcome association.
RESULTS
Forty-one studies met our eligibility criteria. There was notable variability in asthma definitions, TRAP exposure assessment methods and confounder adjustment. The overall random-effects risk estimates (95% CI) were 1.08 (1.03, 1.14) per 0.5×10m black carbon (BC), 1.05 (1.02, 1.07) per 4μg/m nitrogen dioxide (NO), 1.48 (0.89, 2.45) per 30μg/m nitrogen oxides (NO), 1.03 (1.01, 1.05) per 1μg/m Particulate Matter <2.5μm in diameter (PM), and 1.05 (1.02, 1.08) per 2μg/m Particulate Matter <10μm in diameter (PM). Sensitivity analyses supported these findings. Across the main analysis and age-specific analysis, the least heterogeneity was seen for the BC estimates, some heterogeneity for the PM and PM estimates and the most heterogeneity for the NO and NO estimates.
LIMITATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATION OF KEY FINDINGS
The overall risk estimates from the meta-analyses showed statistically significant associations for BC, NO, PM, PM exposures and risk of asthma development. Our findings support the hypothesis that childhood exposure to TRAP contributes to their development of asthma. Future meta-analyses would benefit from greater standardization of study methods including exposure assessment harmonization, outcome harmonization, confounders' harmonization and the inclusion of all important confounders in individual studies.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO 2014: CRD42014015448.
Topics: Adolescent; Air Pollutants; Air Pollution; Asthma; Child; Child, Preschool; Environmental Exposure; Female; Humans; Incidence; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Vehicle Emissions
PubMed: 27881237
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.11.012 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jan 2018Different elements of the environment have been posited to influence type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This systematic review summarizes evidence on the environmental... (Review)
Review
Different elements of the environment have been posited to influence type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This systematic review summarizes evidence on the environmental determinants of T2DM identified in four databases. It proposes a theoretical framework illustrating the link between environment and T2DM, and briefly discusses some methodological challenges and potential solutions, and opportunities for future research. Walkability, air pollution, food and physical activity environment and roadways proximity were the most common environmental characteristics studied. Of the more than 200 reported and extracted relationships assessed in 60 studies, 82 showed significant association in the expected direction. In general, higher levels of walkability and green space were associated with lower T2DM risk, while increased levels of noise and air pollution were associated with greater risk. Current evidence is limited in terms of volume and study quality prohibiting causal inferences. However, the evidence suggests that environmental characteristics may influence T2DM prevention, and also provides a reasonable basis for further investigation with better quality data and longitudinal studies with policy-relevant environmental measures. This pursuit of better evidence is critical to support health-orientated urban design and city planning.
Topics: Air Pollution; City Planning; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Environment Design; Environmental Exposure; Exercise; Female; Humans; Residence Characteristics; Risk Factors; Urban Health; Walking
PubMed: 29304014
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15010078 -
Environmental Health Perspectives Mar 2022Outdoor air pollution is a known lung carcinogen, but research investigating the association between particulate matter (PM) and gastrointestinal (GI) cancers is limited. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Outdoor air pollution is a known lung carcinogen, but research investigating the association between particulate matter (PM) and gastrointestinal (GI) cancers is limited.
OBJECTIVES
We sought to review the epidemiologic literature on outdoor PM and GI cancers and to put the body of studies into context regarding potential for bias and overall strength of evidence.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies that evaluated the association of fine PM [PM with an aerodynamic diameter of ()] and (aerodynamic diameter ) with GI cancer incidence or mortality in adults. We searched five databases for original research published from 1980 to 2021 in English and summarized findings for studies employing a quantitative estimate of exposure overall and by specific GI cancer subtypes. We evaluated the risk of bias of individual studies and the overall quality and strength of the evidence according to the Navigation Guide methodology, which is tailored for environmental health research.
RESULTS
Twenty studies met inclusion criteria and included participants from 14 countries; nearly all were of cohort design. All studies identified positive associations between PM exposure and risk of at least one GI cancer, although in 3 studies these relationships were not statistically significant. Three of 5 studies estimated associations with and satisfied inclusion criteria for meta-analysis, but each assessed a different GI cancer and were therefore excluded. In the random-effects meta-analysis of 13 studies, exposure was associated with an increased risk of GI cancer overall [; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.24]. The most robust associations were observed for liver cancer (; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.56) and colorectal cancer (; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.62), for which all studies identified an increased risk. We rated most studies with "probably low" risk of bias and the overall body of evidence as "moderate" quality with "limited" evidence for this association. We based this determination on the generally positive, but inconsistently statistically significant, effect estimates reported across a small number of studies.
CONCLUSION
We concluded there is some evidence of associations between and GI cancers, with the strongest evidence for liver and colorectal cancers. Although there is biologic plausibility for these relationships, studies of any one cancer site were few and there remain only a small number overall. Studies in geographic areas with high GI cancer burden, evaluation of the impact of different PM exposure assessment approaches on observed associations, and investigation of cancer subtypes and specific chemical components of PM are important areas of interest for future research. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP9620.
Topics: Adult; Air Pollutants; Air Pollution; Environmental Exposure; Gastrointestinal Neoplasms; Humans; Particulate Matter
PubMed: 35234536
DOI: 10.1289/EHP9620 -
Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) Jan 2022Despite the challenges of diagnosing and managing adult patients with chronic cough, a systematic synthesis of evidence on aetiological risk factor is lacking. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Despite the challenges of diagnosing and managing adult patients with chronic cough, a systematic synthesis of evidence on aetiological risk factor is lacking. We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE to synthesize the current evidence for longitudinal associations between a wide range of risk factors and chronic cough in the general adult population, following the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Fixed-effect meta-analysis was conducted where appropriate. Of 26 eligible articles, 16 domains of risk factors were assessed. There was consistent evidence that asthma (pooled adjusted OR [aOR] = 3.01; 95% CI: 2.33-3.70; I = 0%; number of articles [N] = 3) and low education levels/socioeconomic status (SES) (pooled aOR = 1.46; 95% CI: 1.20-1.72; I = 0%; N = 3) were associated with an increased risk of chronic cough after adjusting for smoking and other confounders. While continuous smoking was associated with chronic cough (aOR = 1.81; 95% CI: 1.36-2.26; I = 57%; N = 3), there was too little evidence to draw conclusions for occupational exposures, outdoor air pollution, early-life exposures, diet, snoring and other chronic conditions, including obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and chronic pain. Asthma, persistent smoking and lower education/SES were associated with an increased risk of chronic cough. Longitudinal associations between other factors frequently mentioned empirically (i.e., occupational exposures, air pollution and chronic respiratory conditions) need further investigation, ideally with objective and standardized measurement.
Topics: Air Pollution; Chronic Disease; Cough; Humans; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34658107
DOI: 10.1111/resp.14169 -
Environment International Jun 2022The health effects of traffic-related air pollution (TRAP) continue to be of important public health interest. Following its well-cited 2010 critical review, the Health... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The health effects of traffic-related air pollution (TRAP) continue to be of important public health interest. Following its well-cited 2010 critical review, the Health Effects Institute (HEI) appointed a new expert Panel to systematically evaluate the epidemiological evidence regarding the associations between long-term exposure to TRAP and selected adverse health outcomes. Health outcomes were selected based on evidence of causality for general air pollution (broader than TRAP) cited in authoritative reviews, relevance for public health and policy, and resources available. The Panel used a systematic approach to search the literature, select studies for inclusion in the review, assess study quality, summarize results, and reach conclusions about the confidence in the evidence. An extensive search was conducted of literature published between January 1980 and July 2019 on selected health outcomes. A new exposure framework was developed to determine whether a study was sufficiently specific to TRAP. In total, 353 studies were included in the review. Respiratory effects in children (118 studies) and birth outcomes (86 studies) were the most commonly studied outcomes. Fewer studies investigated cardiometabolic effects (57 studies), respiratory effects in adults (50 studies), and mortality (48 studies). The findings from the systematic review, meta-analyses, and evaluation of the quality of the studies and potential biases provided an overall high or moderate-to-high level of confidence in an association between long-term exposure to TRAP and the adverse health outcomes all-cause, circulatory, ischemic heart disease and lung cancer mortality, asthma onsetin chilldren and adults, and acute lower respiratory infections in children. The evidence was considered moderate, low or very low for the other selected outcomes. In light of the large number of people exposed to TRAP - both in and beyond the near-road environment - the Panel concluded that the overall high or moderate-to-high confidence in the evidence for an association between long-term exposure to TRAP and several adverse health outcomes indicates that exposures to TRAP remain an important public health concern and deserve greater attention from the public and from policymakers.
Topics: Adult; Air Pollutants; Air Pollution; Asthma; Bias; Child; Environmental Exposure; Humans; Traffic-Related Pollution
PubMed: 35569389
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107262 -
International Wound Journal Jun 2018The aims of this study were to identify, assess, and summarise available evidence about the effectiveness of static air mattress overlays to prevent pressure ulcers. The... (Review)
Review
The aims of this study were to identify, assess, and summarise available evidence about the effectiveness of static air mattress overlays to prevent pressure ulcers. The primary outcome was the incidence of pressure ulcers. Secondary outcomes included costs and patient comfort. This study was a systematic review. Six electronic databases were consulted: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed (Medline), CINAHL (EBSCOhost interface), Science direct, and Web of Science. In addition, a hand search through reviews, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of the included studies was performed to identify additional studies. Potential studies were reviewed and assessed by 2 independent authors based on the title and abstract. Decisions regarding inclusion or exclusion of the studies were based on a consensus between the authors. Studies were included if the following criteria were met: reporting an original study; the outcome was the incidence of pressure ulcer categories I to IV when using a static air mattress overlay and/or in comparison with other pressure-redistribution device(s); and studies published in English, French, and Dutch. No limitation was set on study setting, design, and date of publication. The methodological quality assessment was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Tool. Results were reported in a descriptive way to reflect the exploratory nature of the review. The searches included 13 studies: randomised controlled trials (n = 11) and cohort studies (n = 2). The mean pressure ulcer incidence figures found in the different settings were, respectively, 7.8% pressure ulcers of categories II to IV in nursing homes, 9.06% pressure ulcers of categories I to IV in intensive care settings, and 12% pressure ulcers of categories I to IV in orthopaedic wards. Seven comparative studies reported a lower incidence in the groups of patients on a static air mattress overlay. Three studies reported a statistical (P < .1) lower incidence compared with a standard hospital mattress (10 cm thick, density 35 kg/m ), a foam mattress (15 cm thick), and a viscoelastic foam mattress (15 cm thick). No significant difference in incidence, purchase costs, and patient comfort was found compared with dynamic air mattresses. This review focused on the effectiveness of static air mattress overlays to prevent pressure ulcers. There are indications that these mattress overlays are more effective in preventing pressure ulcers compared with the use of a standard mattress or a pressure-reducing foam mattress in nursing homes and intensive care settings. However, interpretation of the evidence should be performed with caution due to the wide variety of methodological and/or reporting quality levels of the included studies.
Topics: Beds; Humans; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 29504266
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12870