Did you mean: splitting
-
The Lancet. Global Health Jun 2023Smokeless tobacco, used by more than 300 million people globally, results in substantial morbidity and mortality. For smokeless tobacco control, many countries have...
BACKGROUND
Smokeless tobacco, used by more than 300 million people globally, results in substantial morbidity and mortality. For smokeless tobacco control, many countries have adopted policies beyond the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which has been instrumental in reducing smoking prevalence. The impact of these policies (within and outside the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control) on smokeless tobacco use remains unclear. We aimed to systematically review policies that are relevant to smokeless tobacco and its context and investigate their impact on smokeless tobacco use.
METHODS
In this systematic review, we searched 11 electronic databases and grey literature between Jan 1, 2005, and Sept 20, 2021, in English and key south Asian languages, to summarise smokeless tobacco policies and their impact. Inclusion criteria were all types of studies on smokeless tobacco users that mentioned any smokeless tobacco relevant policies since 2005, except systematic reviews. Policies issued by organisations or private institutions were excluded as well as studies on e-cigarettes and Electronic Nicotine Delivery System except where harm reduction or switching were evaluated as a tobacco cessation strategy. Two reviewers independently screened articles, and data were extracted after standardisation. Quality of studies was appraised using the Effective Public Health Practice Project's Quality Assessment Tool. Outcomes for impact assessment included smokeless tobacco prevalence, uptake, cessation, and health effects. Due to substantial heterogeneity in the descriptions of policies and outcomes, data were descriptively and narratively synthesised. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020191946).
FINDINGS
14 317 records were identified, of which 252 eligible studies were included as describing smokeless tobacco policies. 57 countries had policies targeting smokeless tobacco, of which 17 had policies outside the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control for smokeless tobacco (eg, spitting bans). 18 studies evaluated the impact, which were of variable quality (six strong, seven moderate, and five weak) and reported mainly on prevalence of smokeless tobacco use. The body of work evaluating policy initiatives based on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control found that these initiatives were associated with reductions in smokeless tobacco prevalence of between 4·4% and 30·3% for taxation and 22·2% and 70·9% for multifaceted policies. Two studies evaluating the non-Framework policy of sales bans reported significant reductions in smokeless tobacco sale (6·4%) and use (combined sex 17·6%); one study, however, reported an increased trend in smokeless tobacco use in the youth after a total sales ban, likely due to cross-border smuggling. The one study reporting on cessation found a 13·3% increase in quit attempts in individuals exposed (47·5%) to Framework Convention on Tobacco Control policy: education, communication, training, and public awareness, compared with non-exposed (34·2%).
INTERPRETATION
Many countries have implemented smokeless tobacco control policies, including those that extend beyond the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The available evidence suggests that taxation and multifaceted policy initiatives are associated with meaningful reductions in smokeless tobacco use.
FUNDING
UK National Institute for Health Research.
Topics: Adolescent; Humans; Tobacco, Smokeless; Tobacco Control; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Smoking; Policy
PubMed: 37202029
DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00205-X -
BMC Oral Health Feb 2024Human saliva as a bodily fluid-similar to blood-is utilized for diagnostic purposes. Unlike blood sampling, collecting saliva is non-invasive, inexpensive, and readily...
BACKGROUND
Human saliva as a bodily fluid-similar to blood-is utilized for diagnostic purposes. Unlike blood sampling, collecting saliva is non-invasive, inexpensive, and readily accessible. There are no previously published systematic reviews regarding different collection, transportation, preparation, and storage methods for human saliva.
DESIGN
This study has been prepared and organized according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. This systematic review has been registered at PROSPERO (Registration ID: CRD42023415384). The study question according to the PICO format was as followed: Comparison of the performance (C) of different saliva sampling, handling, transportation, and storage techniques and methods (I) assessed for analyzing stimulated or unstimulated human saliva (P and O). An electronic search was executed in Scopus, Google Scholar, and PubMed.
RESULTS
Twenty-three descriptive human clinical studies published between 1995 and 2022 were included. Eight categories of salivary features and biomarkers were investigated (i.e., salivary flow rate, total saliva quantity, total protein, cortisol, testosterone, DNA quality and quantity, pH and buffering pH). Twenty-two saliva sampling methods/devices were utilized. Passive drooling, Salivette®, and spitting were the most utilized methods. Sampling times with optimum capabilities for cortisol, iodine, and oral cancer metabolites are suggested to be 7:30 AM to 9:00 AM, 10:30 AM to 11:00 AM, and 14:00 PM to 20:00 PM, respectively. There were 6 storage methods. Centrifuging samples and storing them at -70 °C to -80 °C was the most utilized storage method. For DNA quantity and quality, analyzing samples immediately after collection without centrifuging or storage, outperformed centrifuging samples and storing them at -70 °C to -80 °C. Non-coated Salivette® was the most successful method/device for analyzing salivary flow rate.
CONCLUSION
It is highly suggested that scientists take aid from the reported categorized outcomes, and design their study questions based on the current voids for each method/device.
Topics: Humans; Hydrocortisone; Saliva; Biomarkers; Specimen Handling; DNA
PubMed: 38308289
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-03902-w -
Saudi Medical Journal Jan 2022To evaluate the diagnostic utility of self-collected saliva in coronavirus desease-19 (COVID-19) screening procedures. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the diagnostic utility of self-collected saliva in coronavirus desease-19 (COVID-19) screening procedures.
METHODS
A total of 6 databases were reviewed from their inception until August 2021. Sensitivity and specificity were measured by extracting items (true-positive, true-negative, false-positive and false-negative) from each paper. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy based on Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, version 2.
RESULTS
A total of 41 studies were included in the final analysis. The diagnostic odds ratio (OR) of self-collected saliva was 196.2022 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 117.8833-326.5546). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.955. For detecting COVID-19, self-collected saliva had a moderate sensitivity of 0.8476 [0.8045-0.8826] and positive predictive value of 0.9404 [0.9122-0.9599] but high specificity of 0.9817 [0.9707-0.9887] and negative predictive value of 0.9467 [0.9130-0.9678]. In a subgroup analysis, the diagnostic accuracy of self-collected saliva tended to be higher for symptomatic (vs. asymptomatic) examinees.
CONCLUSION
Although naso/oropharyngeal swab tests are the most accurate and important diagnostic tools, the saliva-based testing method can be used as a suitable alternative test, with the advantages of increased patient convenience, efficient testing, and the need for fewer medical staff and resources. In particular, simple collecting method such as drooling or spitting without coughing would be effective in evaluating the symptomatic patients.PROSPERO no.: CRD42021279287.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Nasopharynx; Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction; SARS-CoV-2; Saliva; Sensitivity and Specificity; Specimen Handling
PubMed: 35022280
DOI: 10.15537/smj.2022.43.1.20210743