scholarly journals LUNG CANCER ASSOCIATED WITH CARBON BLACK EXPOSURE ON BRICK WORKERS

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1SP) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
Anna Nasriawati ◽  
Muhammad Ilyas ◽  
Indah S Widyahening
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Carbon Black ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
International Agency ◽  
Searching Strategy ◽  
Carcinogenic Potential ◽  
Based Medicine

ABSTRACTCarbon black aerosol has potential risks to human health. It has been acknowledged to cause cardiovascular and respiratory diseases in humans. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2010 stated that carbon black classification is 2b, which is carcinogenic. This research explains a case of lung cancer due to carbon black exposure and reviews the literature of occupational cases to get the answers about the effects of carbon black exposure and the increasing risk of lung cancer for workers exposed to carbon black. The literature review was performed to answer the clinical question via electronic databases: PubMed and Google Scholar. The keywords used were ‘carbon black’ and ‘lung cancer’ and 'workers'. The inclusion criteria of this searching strategy were the workers which exposed to carbon black, meta-analysis, randomized controlled trial, systematic reviews, cohort. The exclusion criteria of this article were inaccessible articles, RCTs that have been used in the recent systematic reviews. The selected articles were then critically appraised using relevant criteria by the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine. This study reviews the literature by Rota Matteo; The epidemiological evidence on the polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) high exposed, perspective cohort study by Delli LD, and the control case study by Marie EPt. All the researches above showed that carbon black carcinogenic potential is the same as the IARC monograph statement that the epidemiological studies of carbon black provide possible carcinogenicity (Group of 2B). Keywords: carbon black, lung cancer, workers

scholarly journals Shift Work and Prostate Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 1345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Rivera-Izquierdo ◽  
Virginia Martínez-Ruiz ◽  
Elena Mercedes Castillo-Ruiz ◽  
Miriam Manzaneda-Navío ◽  
Beatriz Pérez-Gómez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Shift Work ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Night Shift ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Potential Effect ◽  
Current Data ◽  
International Agency ◽  
Case Control Studies

The International Agency of Research in Cancer (IARC) has recently confirmed shift work as a type 2A carcinogen. The results presented in published epidemiological studies regarding prostate cancer are inconsistent and the association remains controversial. The aims of this study were: (a) to investigate the possible association between shift work and prostate cancer incidence, identifying possible sources of heterogeneity; and (b) to analyze the potential effect of publication bias. A search for cohort and case-control studies published from January 1980 to November 2019 was conducted. The quality of the articles was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Pooled OR were calculated using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran’s Q test and data were stratified by potential sources of heterogeneity. Publication bias was analyzed. Eighteen studies were included. No association was found between rotating/night-shift work and prostate cancer, pooled OR 1.07 (95%CI 0.99 to 1.15), I2 = 45.7%, p = 0.016. Heterogeneity was eliminated when only cohort studies (pooled OR 1.03; 95%CI 0.96 to 1.10; I2 = 18.9%, p = 0.264) or high-quality studies (pooled OR 0.99; 95%CI 0.89 to 1.08; I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.571) were considered. A publication bias was detected. An association between shift work and prostate cancer cannot be confirmed with the available current data. Future analytical studies assessing more objective homogeneous exposure variables still seem necessary.

Effects of patient navigation on satisfaction with cancer care: A systematic review.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18088-e18088
Author(s):  
Pascal Jean-Pierre
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Patient Navigation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Optimal Health

e18088 Background: Patient navigation (PN) is a model of health care coordination designed to ameliorate health disparities by reducing barriers to achieving optimal health outcomes. Systematic reviews that evaluate whether PN is associated with higher patient satisfaction with cancer care are lacking. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to synthesize evidence of comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of PN programs to improve satisfaction with cancer-related care. We included studies reported in English that: 1) evaluated a PN intervention designed to increase satisfaction with cancer care; and 2) involved a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or observational design. We abstracted data from studies using standardized forms, and evaluated these studies for methodological quality. Data were summarized qualitatively and synthesized under a random effects model. Results: The initial search yielded 831 citations, of which 3 RCTs and 6 observational studies met inclusion criteria. These nine studies involving 4,200 surveyed patients revealed either a neutral or positive effect in patient satisfaction in the majority of studies of PN and cancer-related care. However, only 5 studies (1 RCT and 4 observational) had adequate datato include in the meta-analysis. Methodological quality of eight of the included studies ranged from weak to moderate to strong, with half rated as weak. Findings of the RCT showed a statistically significant increase in satisfaction with cancer care involving PN [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 2.30; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.79, 2.80, p < .001]. Pooled results from non-RCTs showed no significant association between PN and satisfaction with cancer-related care (SMD = 0.39; 95% CI: -0.02, 0.80, p = .06). Conclusions: More systematic reviews are needed to characterize the relationship between PN and satisfaction with cancer-related care across the cancer care continuum and across different types of cancer.

Radon: Occupational or Domestic Carcinogen?

1994 ◽  
Vol 56 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 81-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Monchaux ◽  
R. Masse (INVITED)
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Indoor Radon ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Biological Data ◽  
Excess Risk ◽  
Underground Mines ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Remedial Actions ◽  
Radon Measurements

Abstract An association between an excess risk of lung cancer and exposure to radon and its daughters has been demonstrated in uranium miners and in other miners. In various countries, radon measurements in dwellings showed that indoor radon concentrations are in the same range as in underground mines. Geographical epidemiological studies do not show an excess risk of lung cancer in people living in radon rich areas and case-control studies of domestic exposures lead to conflicting results. A joint study allowing meta-analysis of the results from 19 epidemiological studies carried out throughout the world should provide reliable data by and after 1995. Experimental data and biological data from radon-induced human tumours might allow the identification of tumours induced by irradiation compared with tumours induced by other agents. Until now, the role of domestic exposure in the occurrence of lung cancer remains unclear and therefore the usefulness of remedial actions questionable.

scholarly journals Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) A1298C polymorphism and risk of lung cancer

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vandana Rai
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Methylenetetrahydrofolate Reductase ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Mthfr Gene ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Mthfr A1298c ◽  
A1298c Polymorphism ◽  
Allele Contrast

AbstractRecent epidemiological studies have reported association between methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene polymorphisms and lung cancer. The aim of the present study to perform a meta-analysis of published studies to validate the association between MTHFR A1298C polymorphism and risk of lung cancer.PubMed, Springer Link, Science Direct and Google Scholar databases were searched for eligible studies. Of the 78 initially identified studies, 11 case–control studies with 5,996 patients and 7,404 healthy controls were finally included in the present meta-analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated to assess the association, and all statistical analyses were performed using MIX software (version 1.7).No statistically significant associations were found between the MTHFR A1298C polymorphism and lung cancer risk in the additive/ allele contrast, co-dominant/heterozygote, homozygote, dominant and recessive genetic models (C vs. A: OR= 0.95, 95% CI= 0.83-1.08; CC vs. AA: OR= 1.13, 95% CI= 0.83-1.5; AC vs. AA: OR= 0.86, 95% CI= 0.70-1.02; AC+CC vs. AA: OR= 0.89, 95% CI= 0.75-1.05; CC vs. AA+AC: OR= 1.20, 95% CI= 0.89-1.40). Significant heterogeneity between individual studies was evident in all five models. In conclusion, present meta-analysis results indicated that there is no significant association between MTHFR A1298C polymorphism and risk of lung cancer.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 6. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies

2008 ◽  
Vol 5;12 (5;9) ◽  
pp. 819-850
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Confounding Bias ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

Observational studies provide an important source of information when randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cannot or should not be undertaken, provided that the data are analyzed and interpreted with special attention to bias. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) stresses the examination of evidence from clinical research and describes it as a shift in medical paradigm, in contrast to intuition, unsystematic clinical experience, and pathophysiologic rationale. While the importance of randomized trials has been created by the concept of the hierarchy of evidence in guiding therapy, much of the medical research is observational. The reporting of observational research is often not detailed and clear enough with insufficient quality and poor reporting, which hampers the assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the study and the generalizability of the mixed results. Thus, in recent years, progress and innovations in health care are measured by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as, “the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, clinical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic.” Meta-analysis usually is the final step in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are labor intensive, requiring expertise in both the subject matter and review methodology, and also must follow the rules of EBM which suggests that a formal set of rules must complement medical training and common sense for clinicians to integrate the results of clinical research effectively. While expertise in the review methods is important, the expertise in the subject matter and technical components is also crucial. Even though, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, specifically of RCTs, have exploded, the quality of the systematic reviews is highly variable and consequently, the opinions reached of the same studies are quite divergent. Numerous deficiencies have been described in methodologic assessment of the quality of the individual articles. Consequently, observational studies can provide an important complementary source of information, provided that the data are analyzed and interpreted in the context of confounding bias to which they are prone. Appropriate systematic reviews of observational studies, in conjunction with RCTs, may provide the basis for elimination of a dangerous discrepancy between the experts and the evidence. Steps in conducting systematic reviews of observational studies include planning, conducting, reporting, and disseminating the results. MOOSE, or Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, a proposal for reporting contains specifications including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the MOOSE checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analysis for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision-makers. This manuscript describes systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Authors frequently utilize RCTs and observational studies in one systematic review; thus, they should also follow the reporting standards of the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement, which also provides a checklist. A combined approach of QUOROM and MOOSE will improve reporting of systematic reviews and lead to progress and innovations in health care. Key words: Observational studies, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, metaanalysis, randomized trials, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, confounding bias, QUOROM, MOOSE

The Protection of the Person is Central in CIOMS International Ethical Guidelines

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 270-272
Author(s):  
Michel Vallotton ◽  
Sian Fluss ◽  
Gian Sjolin Forsberg
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Nongovernmental Organization ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
And Storage

In this brief article the authors report on the objectives of this nongovernmental organization and, most particularly, on the protection of the person in its International Ethical Guidelines for the fields of clinical trials and epidemiological studies. They emphasize the terminology used to describe the subjects or the populations involved in these studies. They discuss the possibility and nature of harm to persons involved in such studies, and justify the requirement for informed consent also for the persons involved in epidemiological studies. Finally, they consider the roles of such trials and studies as the basis for evidence-based medicine, including cases when their results are pooled in meta-analysis. This methodology is the subject of examination by a CIOMS Working Group of  problems concerning identification and selection criteria, analysis and interpretation of results (including unpublished results), and storage of data.

Previous pulmonary tuberculosis enhances the risk of lung cancer: systematic reviews and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Hossein Abdeahad ◽  
Maryam Salehi ◽  
Atieh Yaghoubi ◽  
Amir Hossein Aalami ◽  
Farnoosh Aalami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Pulmonary Tuberculosis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Methodology and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies in psychiatric epidemiology: Systematic review

2012 ◽  
Vol 200 (6) ◽  
pp. 446-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Traolach S. Brugha ◽  
Ruth Matthews ◽  
Zoe Morgan ◽  
Trevor Hill ◽  
Jordi Alonso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Many Sources ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundRelatively little is known of the use of systematic review and synthesis methods of non-randomised psychiatric epidemiological studies, which play a vital role in aetiological research, planning and policy-making.AimsTo evaluate reviews of psychiatric epidemiological studies of functional mental disorders that employed synthesis methods such as systematic review or meta-analysis, or other forms of quantitative review.MethodWe searched the literature to identify appropriate reviews published during the period 1996 to April 2009. Selected reviews were evaluated using published review guidelines.ResultsWe found 106 reviews in total, of which 38 (36%) did not mention method of data abstraction from primary studies at all. Many failed to mention study quality, publication bias, bias and confounding. In 73 studies that performed a meta-analysis, 58 (79%) tested for heterogeneity and of these, 47 found significant heterogeneity. Studies that detected heterogeneity made some allowance for this. A major obstacle facing reviewers is the wide variation between primary studies in the use of instruments to measure outcomes and in sampling methods used.ConclusionsMany deficiencies found in systematic reviews are potentially remediable, although synthesis of primary study findings in a field characterised by so many sources of heterogeneity will remain challenging.

scholarly journals Vitamins and lung cancer

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jarmo Virtamo
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Vitamin C ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Plasma Concentrations ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Dietary Vitamin ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Lung Carcinogenesis ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Β Carotene

Lung cancer is the most common cancer in the world, and smoking is the major risk factor, accounting for about 90% of the cases. Diet has also been implicated in the development of lung cancer, although the specific nutrients remain to be elucidated. Vitamins with antioxidant activity have received much attention. β-Carotene, the most efficient provitamin A, was found to be inversely related to the risk of lung cancer in many prospective epidemiological studies, especially in studies measuring serum concentrations of β-carotene. The findings from controlled trials, however, contradict the hypothesis that β-carotene could prevent lung cancer, but rather suggest increased risk of lung cancer with supplementary β-carotene. Data from both prospective studies and a controlled trial suggest no role for vitamin E in lung carcinogenesis. Some prospective epidemiological studies suggest an inverse relationship between dietary vitamin C and the risk of lung cancer, but due to the high correlation between dietary vitamin C and vegetable and fruit intake the independent role of dietary vitamin C is difficult to estimate. Studies using prediagnostic plasma concentrations of ascorbic acid do not support the involvement of vitamin C in lung carcinogenesis, and no controlled trials of vitamin C on lung cancer have been published. Thus, supplementation with antioxidant vitamins cannot be recommended for the prevention of lung cancer. Non-smoking is the most important target in the prevention of lung cancer. High i ntakes of vegetables and fruits may provide additional protection and are unlikely to be harmful.

scholarly journals REGISTERING AND REPORTING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 122-126
Author(s):  
Pallavi Patro ◽  
Durga Prasanna Misra
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Literature Searches ◽  
Review Question ◽  
Based Medicine

Systematic reviews are considered as the highest rung in the ladder of evidence-based medicine. They are bound by a pre-defined structure and requirement for extensive literature searches, when compared with the more liberal format of narrative reviews. Systematic review protocols should ideally be pre-registered to avoid duplication or redundancy. After defining clear review question(s), thorough literature searches form the basis of systematic reviews. Presentation of results should be qualitative or quantitative (meta-analysis) if the data is homogenous enough to permit pooling across multiple studies. Quality of individual studies by Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool for interventional studies and other suitable scales for observational studies, as well as appropriate assessment of publication bias are recommended. Certainty of outcomes should be assessed by the GRADE profiler. Finally, systematic reviews should conclude with recommendations for future research, based on their findings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document