ABSTRACT
Background The United Kingdom (UK) adopts active surveillance and passive surveillance to jointly collect occupational injury data, and builds a relatively complete occupational injury surveillance system, which can provide reference for the construction of China's occupational injury surveillance system. Objective To compare the results of active surveillance and passive surveillance of occupational injuries in the UK, and to explore the joint application value of active and passive surveillance methods in the field of occupational injury prevention and control. Methods The non-fatal occupational injury active surveillance data from Labor Force Survey were used to calculate indicators such as number of reported cases, reporting rate, lost workdays per year, lost workdays per capita, and average lost workdays per case. The fatal passive surveillance data reported by the employers were used to calculate number of reported deaths, reported mortality, and other indicators. Join-point regression was used to estimate the reported trends of fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries from 2004 to 2020, and the annual percentage change (APC) and average annual percentage change (AAPC) were calculated. Results The active surveillance data showed that from 2004 to 2020, the number of reported cases of absenteeism ≥0 d due to occupational injury decreased from 89.7 (95%CI: 85.2, 94.2) per ten thousand to 44.1 (95%CI: 39.1, 49.2) per ten thousand, and the reporting rate of occupational injury decreased from 32100/100000 (95%CI: 3050/100000, 3370/100000) to 1410/100000 (95%CI: 1250/100000, 1570/100000), showing a linear downward trend (both APC and AAPC were −3.88%, P<0.05); the average lost workdays per case in 2019 was 9.1 (95%CI: 6.8, 11.5) d. The passive surveillance data showed that from 2004 to 2020, the number of reported deaths due to occupational injury decreased from 223 to 142, and the reporting rate of occupational injury decreased from 0.78/100000 to 0.44/100000, showing a linear downward trend (both APC and AAPC were −4.59%, P<0.05). Conclusion The reporting rates of fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries in the UK are showing a linear downward trend. The active surveillance method based on Labor Force Survey provides more surveillance indicators for non-fatal occupational injuries, and the passive surveillance method based on employer report has more advantages in assessment of fatal occupational injuries. Jointly applying the two surveillance modalities and the combination of trend analysis indicators, such as AAPC, provide a more comprehensive picture of the epidemiological characteristics of occupational injuries.
ABSTRACT
Background The severity of occupational injury in countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany is usually analyzed using lost workdays, but in existing occupational injury surveillance research in China, the application of this index is rare. Objective To evaluate the application value of lost workdays in non-fatal occupational injury surveillance, and provide a reference for the construction of occupational injury surveillance index system. Methods The public data of European Statistics on Accidents at Work (ESAW) from 2010 to 2019 on non-fatal injury accidents in 27 member states of the European Union were used. Non-fatal occupational injury is defined as an injury event during occupational activities or at work resulting a victim's absence from work for ≥4 d. According to the European Statistics on Accidents at Work-Summary methodology, the lost workdays were divided into 8 categories (4-6 d, 7-13 d, 14-20 d, 21-30 d, 31-91 d, 92-182 d, 183 d and above, and unknown). Annual percentage change (APC) and the average annual percentage change (AAPC) were used to evaluate the overall trend changes in the incidence rate of non-fatal occupational injury accidents in different lost workdays from 2010 to 2019, and the non-fatal occupational injury accidents in key industries. The characteristics of the occurrence of non-fatal occupational injuries were analyzed in conjunction with the changes in non-fatal occupational injuries in different lost workdays in the industry. Results From 2010 to 2019, the overall incidence of non-fatal occupational injury accidents in the European Union showed a downward trend, and the AAPC was −1.0% (P<0.05). The accident rates of lost workdays of 4-6 d and 92-182 d showed an upward trend, and the AAPC were 7.9% and 5.8% respectively (P<0.05). The average annual accident rates of non-fatal occupational injuries (≥4 d) in Categories C (manufacturing industry), E (water supply, sewage treatment, waste management and remediation), and F (construction industry) showed a linear downward trend, and the AAPC were −3.0%, −2.5%, and −1.5%, respectively (P<0.05). However, among them, the rate of non-fatal occupational injury accidents with 92-182 d of lost workdays in the manufacturing industry showed a significant upward trend, with an AAPC of 3.7% (P<0.001). Conclusion Using lost workdays combined with APC and AAPC by Join-point linear regression analysis can measure the severity and trend changes of non-fatal occupational injury accidents in different industries and different lost workdays. This indicator has an important practical significance in evaluating the effectiveness of occupational injury prevention and control strategies adopted by countries and enterprises.
ABSTRACT
Objective@#To evaluate the effectiveness of surgery combined with multiple interventions in treating patients with ear keloid by network meta-analysis.@*Methods@#Databases including " PubMed" , " Cochrane Library" were searched using key words " (((((((((((Ear, External[MeSH Terms]]] OR (Ears, Exernal]] OR (Outer Ear]] OR (Ear, Outer]] OR (Ears, Outer]] OR (External Ear]]] AND (((keloid[Mesh Terms]]] OR (keloids]]] AND ((((((surgery[MeSH Terms]]] OR (operative therapy]] OR (operative procedures]] OR (invasive procedures]] OR (operations]]]] AND (randomized controlled trial[pt]]" , database " Embase" was searched using key words ((′external ear′/exp] OR(′auricle′/exp] OR (′ear lobe′/exp]] AND ((′surgery′/exp] OR (′ear surgery′/exp]] AND (′keloid′/exp] AND (′randomized controlled trial′/exp] and Chineses journals full-text database, China biology medicine disc, VIP database, and Wanfang database were searched using key words in chinese version "耳瘢痕疙瘩,手术" to obtain the randomized controlled trails about surgery combined with multiple interventions in the treatment of ear keloid from the establishment of each database to June 2018. EndNote X7, Revman 5.3, STATA 14.0, GeMTC 14.3 statistical software were used to extract data from studies, study quality assessment, drawing network figure, publication bias analysis, traditional meta-analysis, heterogeneity test, consistency test, similarity test, network meta-analysis.@*Results@#A total of 18 trails involving 8 therapeutic measures were included, and 1 425 patients with ear keloid were included. All of the 18 trails had high risk of bias. The network figure shows that there are 28 different pairwise comparisons among the eight treatments. Of the 18 studies included, 10 were directly compared, and the remaining 18 were not directly evidenced, those comparisons will be made indirectly by the network meta-analysis. The basic symmetry of each point in the funnel plot and the P values of Beggs test and Eggers test were all greater than 0.05, shows that the existence of publication bias is less likely. Traditional meta-analysis showed that the efficiency of surgery + hormone, surgery + pressure, surgery + radiotherapy and surgery + hormone + radiotherapy were better than that of simple surgery, and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05); the efficiency of surgery + hormone + radiotherapy was better than that of surgery + hormone, the difference was statistically significant(P=0.001); surgery + hormone + fluorouracil and surgery + hormone + radiotherapy had statistical significance(P<0.05). Efficiency is higher than surgery + radiotherapy, the difference is statistically significant. The rest of the direct comparisons are not statistically significant. All P values in the heterogeneity test were greater than 0.1 and I2 was less than 50%, so there was no significant heterogeneity in the study. 8 treatments formed 4 closed loops, the inconsistency factor IF ranged from 0.06 to 0.23, and the lower limit of 95% CI was 0, it means than the consistency of those loops were good. The similarity test of the 18 studies was good. Based on Bayesian theory, the random effect model of MCMC method was analyzed by network meta analysis. The results of 7 combined therapies were statistically significant compared with those of simple operation, and were superior to those of simple operation. The results of the seven combined therapies were statistically significant as follows: surgery + hormone + fluorouracil VS surgery + radiotherapy (OR = 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.93], surgery + hormone + fluorouracil was better than surgery + hormone; surgery + hormone + radiotherapy + VS surgery + hormone (OR = 0.06, 95% CI 0.01-0.23], surgery + hormone + radiotherapy Surgery + hormone + radiotherapy VS surgery + pressure (OR = 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.37], surgery + hormone + radiotherapy is better than surgery + pressure; surgery + hormone + radiotherapy VS surgery + radiotherapy (OR = 0.06, 95% CI 0.01-0.30], surgery + hormone + radiotherapy is better than surgery + radiotherapy. There was no significant difference in the curative effect between the other combined treatments. The SUCRA curves were drawn according to the randomized effect model of MCMC. The SUCRA values of each treatment measure were as follows: surgery, 0.4%; surgery + hormone, 33.0%; surgery + pressure, 52.2%; surgery + radiotherapy, 34.6%; surgery + imiquimod 53.3%; surgery + fluorouracil 51.6%; surgery + hormone + fluorouracil, 76.4%; surgery + hormone + radiotherapy, 34.6%; surgery + hormone + fluorouracil, 53.3%; surgery + hormone Radiotherapy, 98.4%. According to the results of SUCRA chart, the effectiveness of each treatment measure was sorted as follows: operation + hormone + radiotherapy > operation + hormone + fluorouracil > operation + imiquimod > operation + pressure > operation + fluorouracil > operation + radiotherapy > operation + hormone > operation.@*Conclusions@#Surgery combined with a variety of treatments for ear keloid were superior to simple surgical treatment, of which surgery + hormone + radiotherapy is the best.