ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This protocol outlines a scoping review with the objective of identifying and exploring planetary health considerations within existing health guidelines and health technology assessments (HTA). The insights gained from this review will serve as a basis for shaping future Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) guidance on planetary health. METHODS: We will adhere to the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will conduct a comprehensive search and screening of results in all languages across various databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, Health Systems Evidence, Greenfile, and Environmental Issues. Additionally, we will supplement this search with resources such as the GIN library, BIGG database, Epistemonikos, GRADE guidelines repository, GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool Database, MAGICapp, NICE website, WHO websites, and a manual exploration of unpublished relevant documents using Google incognito mode. Two independent reviewers will screen and assess the full texts of identified documents according to the eligibility criteria. The following information from each full text will be extracted: document title; first author's name; publication year; language; document type; document as a guideline or HTA; the topic/discipline; document purpose/study objective; developing/sponsoring organization; the country in which the study/guideline/HTA report was conducted; definition of planetary health or related concept provided; types of planetary health experts engaged; study methods; suggested methods to assess planetary health; use of secondary data on planetary health outcomes; description for use of life cycle assessment; description for assessing the quality of life cycle; population/intended audience; interventions; category; applicable planetary health boundaries; consideration of social justice/global equity; phase of intervention in life cycle related to planetary health addressed; the measure of planetary health impact; impact on biodiversity/land use; one health/animal welfare mention; funding; and conflict of interest. Data analysis will involve a combination of descriptive statistics and directed content analysis, with results presented in a narrative format and displayed in tables and graphs. DISCUSSION: The final review results will be submitted to open-access peer-reviewed journals for publication when they become available. The research findings will also be disseminated at relevant planetary health conferences and workshops. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/3jmsa ).
Subject(s)
Global Health , Technology Assessment, Biomedical , Humans , Practice Guidelines as TopicABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To date, there is no formal consensus on how to treat ingrown toenails. Despite the risk of causing irreparable damage to the nail, highly invasive procedures are still common. Less-invasive, matrix-directed techniques with shorter downtime and high cure rates exist, but, perhaps because of a lack of awareness, appear not to have been universally adopted. OBJECTIVE: The authors' study sought to generate data on common practices in the treatment of ingrown toenails. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors developed and conducted an online survey to ask dermatologists/dermatosurgeons how they would proceed in 9 different cases of ingrown toenails based on photographs. RESULTS: The authors received 154 replies. Nonsurgical interventions, including advice on nail care/foot baths/ointments/wraps/padding, were always the most frequently chosen option. Removal of the lateral nail plate followed by chemical partial matricectomy (phenolization) was the most or second-most frequently chosen surgical intervention. The answers were highly heterogeneous, and there was no unanimity based on morphology alone. CONCLUSION: Except for a preference for nonsurgical interventions, the authors could not identify any clear treatment standards. The heterogeneity of treatment approaches suggests the need for a guideline.
Subject(s)
Nails, Ingrown , Nails , Humans , Nails/surgery , Dermatologists , Nails, Ingrown/surgeryABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite broad agreement on the health impact of climate change, climatic considerations are still not widespread in the domain of medical practice. Methods to compile and assess climate-related evidence in guidelines are, although desirable for the protection of both humans and the environment, not yet available. OBJECTIVES: The present article explores the conflict between ethical and clinical implications of climate change comparing two guidelines. This comparison highlights barriers and opportunities to guideline development and their significance to prescription practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A selective literature search and analysis of two clinical practice guidelines was performed. RESULTS: Despite partly rigorous appraisal of existing evidence, both guidelines offer consensus-based recommendations only. Narrative evidence syntheses, in which the climate models underlying the reported data are made explicit, enable readers to draw independent conclusions regarding the validity of recommendations made. Educational efforts of this kind play a special role, given the current paucity of unambiguous information on climatic trends. CONCLUSION: The urgency of climate change requires actions on all fronts. As contributions to the public discourse, guidelines should discuss adaptation strategies to climate change as well as mitigation measures and discuss them in a way that empowers their readers to make independent decisions. In doing so, it is important to keep in mind that informed patients may not necessarily prefer the most medically effective intervention, but may be willing to give priority to the health of the planet.
