Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Sci Rep ; 13(1): 13873, 2023 Aug 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37620392

ABSTRACT

Large solar coronal mass ejections pose a threat in the near-Earth space. As a cause of extreme periods of space weather, they can damage satellite-based communications and create geomagnetically induced currents in power and energy grids. Further, the solar wind energetic particles can reduce the protecting layer of atmospheric ozone and pose a threat to life on Earth. The large coronal mass ejection (CME) of July 2012, although directed away from the Earth, is often highlighted as a prime example of a potentially devastating super storm. Here we show, based on proton fluxes recorded by the instruments aboard the STEREO-A satellite, that the atmospheric response to the July 2012 event would have been comparable to those of the largest solar proton events of the satellite era. Significant impact on total ozone outside polar regions would require a much larger event, similar to those recorded in historical proxy data sets. Such an extreme event would cause long-term ozone reduction all the way to the equator and increase the size, duration, and depth of the Antarctic ozone hole. The impact would be comparable to predicted drastic and sudden ozone reduction from major volcanic eruptions, regional nuclear conflicts, or long-term stratospheric geoengineering.

2.
Pharmaceutics ; 15(4)2023 Mar 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37111543

ABSTRACT

In recent years, there has been a significant surge in reports on the health-promoting benefits of winter cherry (Withania somnifera), also known as Ashwagandha. Its current research covers many aspects of human health, including neuroprotective, sedative and adaptogenic effects and effects on sleep. There are also reports of anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, cardioprotective and anti-diabetic properties. Furthermore, there are reports of reproductive outcomes and tarcicidal hormone action. This growing body of research on Ashwagandha highlights its potential as a valuable natural remedy for many health concerns. This narrative review delves into the most recent findings and provides a comprehensive overview of the current understanding of ashwagandha's potential uses and any known safety concerns and contraindications.

3.
Patient Prefer Adherence ; 15: 57-68, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33500615

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Despite evidence from clinical guideline development that physicians and patients show discordance in what they consider important in outcome selection and prioritization, it is unclear to what extent outcome preferences are concordant between experts and citizens when it comes to the context of primary prevention. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess whether expert judgments about the importance of beneficial and harmful outcomes differ from citizen preferences when considering intervention options for a periodic health examination (PHE) program. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We conducted an online survey using a modified Delphi approach. The target population for the survey consisted of citizens who had attended the PHE (n=18) and experts who made evidence-based recommendations (n=11). Citizens and experts assigned a score on a 9-point Likert scale for each outcome of 14 interventions. We analyzed the intragroup agreement based on Krippendorff's alpha and the intergroup agreement using the cube root product measure (CRPm). We further tested for significant differences between the groups using the Mann U-test. RESULTS: Agreements within the groups of citizens and experts varied across the interventions and tended to be poor (α ≤0 to 0.20) or fair (α = 0.21 to 0.40), with three exceptions showing moderate agreement (α = 0.44 to 0.55). The agreements between the citizens and experts across the interventions was fair (CRPm = 0.28) during the first Delphi rating round. The mean differences between the citizens and experts on the Likert scale ranged from 0.0 to 3.8 during the first rating round and from 0.0 to 3.3 during the second. Across interventions, the citizens rated the outcomes as more important than the experts did (p<0.01). Individual participants' ratings varied substantially. CONCLUSION: Because experts generally underestimated the outcomes' importance to citizens, the involvement of citizens in guideline panels for preventive services is important.

4.
Sci Rep ; 10(1): 12699, 2020 07 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32728050

ABSTRACT

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity in the general population (CRD42018086888). Our review included 32 studies. To detect obesity with body mass index (BMI), the meta-analyses rendered a sensitivity of 51.4% (95% CI 38.5-64.2%) and a specificity of 95.4% (95% CI 90.7-97.8%) in women, and 49.6% (95% CI 34.8-64.5%) and 97.3% (95% CI 92.1-99.1%), respectively, in men. For waist circumference (WC), the summary estimates for the sensitivity were 62.4% (95% CI 49.2-73.9%) and 88.1% for the specificity (95% CI 77.0-94.2%) in men, and 57.0% (95% CI 32.2-79.0%) and 94.8% (95% CI 85.8-98.2%), respectively, in women. The data were insufficient to pool the results for waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) but were similar to BMI and WC. In conclusion, BMI and WC have serious limitations for use as obesity screening tools in clinical practice despite their widespread use. No evidence supports that WHR and WHtR are more suitable than BMI or WC to assess body fat. However, due to the lack of more accurate and feasible alternatives, BMI and WC might still have a role as initial tools for assessing individuals for excess adiposity until new evidence emerges.


Subject(s)
Anthropometry/methods , Obesity/diagnosis , Body Mass Index , Female , Humans , Male , Sensitivity and Specificity , Waist-Height Ratio , Waist-Hip Ratio
5.
BMJ Open ; 9(12): e032528, 2019 12 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31831544

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Occupational injuries and diseases are a huge public health problem and cause extensive suffering and loss of productivity. Nevertheless, many occupational health and safety (OHS) guidelines are still not based on the best available evidence. In the last decade, numerous systematic reviews on behavioural, relational and mixed interventions to reduce occupational injuries and diseases have been carried out, but a comprehensive synopsis is yet missing. The aim of this overview of reviews is to provide a comprehensive basis to inform evidence-based decision-making about interventions in the field of OHS. METHODS: We conducted an overview of reviews. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), the Cochrane Library (Wiley), epistemonikos.org and Scopus (Elsevier) for relevant systematic reviews published between January 2008 and June 2018. Two authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications and determined the risk of bias of the included systematic reviews with the ROBIS (Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews) tool. RESULTS: We screened 2287 abstracts and 200 full-texts for eligibility. Finally, we included 25 systematic reviews with a low risk of bias for data synthesis and analysis. We identified systematic reviews on the prevention of occupational injuries, musculoskeletal, skin and lung diseases, occupational hearing impairment and interventions without specific target diseases. Several interventions led to consistently positive results on individual diseases; other interventions did not show any effects, or the studies are contradictory. We provide detailed results on all included interventions. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive overview of behavioural, relational and mixed interventions and their effectiveness in preventing occupational injuries and diseases. It provides policymakers with an important basis for making evidence-based decisions on interventions in this field. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018100341.


Subject(s)
Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Public Health/standards , Safety Management/methods , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Occupational Health
6.
Wien Med Wochenschr ; 169(13-14): 339-349, 2019 Oct.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31187373

ABSTRACT

The Austrian periodic health examination (PHE) was introduced in 1974 as a health insurance benefit and was redesigned for the last time in 2005. Therefore, the aim of this work was to revise the scientific basis of the PHE using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. We updated the scientific evidence of examinations and consultations that are currently part of the PHE and searched and integrated new examinations. We assessed the expectations of the population towards the PHE in three focus groups. A panel of experts developed evidence-based recommendations for the revised PHE. They formulated 26 recommendations on 20 target diseases or risk factors. In comparison to the previous PHE, the panel added screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm, osteoporotic fracture risk, and chronic kidney disease to the recommendations, while screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria, screening for iron deficiency/pernicious anaemia, and risk identification of glaucoma should no longer be included.


Subject(s)
Mass Screening , Physical Examination , Austria , Humans , Risk Factors
7.
Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry ; 28(10): 1295-1310, 2019 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30151800

ABSTRACT

The European Union member states received about 385,000 asylum applications from children and adolescents below 18 years in 2015, and 398,000 in 2016. The latest political crises and war have led to an upsurge in refugee movements into European countries, giving rise to a re-evaluation of the epidemiology of psychiatric disorders and mental health problems among young refugees and asylum seekers. We systematically searched five electronic databases and reference lists of pertinent review articles. We then screened the results of forward citation tracking of key articles for relevant studies in the field for the period from January 1990 to October 2017. We dually reviewed citations and assessed risk of bias. We reported the results narratively, as meta-analyses were impeded due to high heterogeneity. We included 47 studies covered in 53 articles. Overall, the point prevalence of the investigated psychiatric disorders and mental health problems varied widely among studies (presenting interquartile ranges): for posttraumatic stress disorder between 19.0 and 52.7%, for depression between 10.3 and 32.8%, for anxiety disorders between 8.7 and 31.6%, and for emotional and behavioural problems between 19.8 and 35.0%. The highly heterogeneous evidence base could be improved by international, methodologically comparable studies with sufficiently large sample sizes drawn randomly among specific refugee populations. The prevalence estimates suggest, nevertheless, that specialized mental health care services for the most vulnerable refugee and asylum-seeking populations are needed. REGISTRATION: The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO on October 19th, 2017 with the number: CRD42017080039 and is available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=80039.


Subject(s)
Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Refugees/psychology , Adolescent , Child , Europe , Female , Humans , Male , Prevalence , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires
8.
Implement Sci ; 13(1): 150, 2018 12 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30541590

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Over the past years, implementation science has gained more and more importance in German-speaking countries. Reliable and valid questionnaires are needed for evaluating the implementation of evidence-based practices. On an international level, several initiatives focused on the identification of questionnaires used in English-speaking countries but limited their search processes to mental health and public health settings. Our aim was to identify questionnaires used in German-speaking countries measuring the implementation of interventions in public health and health care settings in general and to assess their psychometric properties. METHODS: We searched five different bibliographic databases (from 1985 to August 2017) and used several other search strategies (e.g., reference lists, forward citation) to obtain our data. We assessed the instruments, which were identified in an independent dual review process, using 12 psychometric rating criteria. Finally, we mapped the instruments' scales and subscales in regard to the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Implementation Outcome Framework (IOF). RESULTS: We identified 31 unique instruments available for the assessment of implementation science constructs. Hospitals and other health care settings were the ones most often investigated (23 instruments), while education and childcare settings, workplace settings, and community settings lacked published instruments. Internal consistency, face and content validity, usability, and structural validity were the aspects most often described. However, most studies did not report on test-retest reliability, known-groups validity, predictive criterion validity, or responsiveness. Overall, the majority of studies did not reveal high-quality instruments, especially regarding the psychometric criteria internal consistency, structural validity, and criterion validity. In addition, we seldom detected instruments operationalizing the CFIR domains intervention characteristics, outer setting, and process, and the IOF constructs adoption, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, a sustained and continuous effort is needed to improve the reliability and validity of existing instruments to new ones. Instruments applicable to the assessment of implementation constructs in public health and community settings are urgently needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO on October 19, 2017, under the following number: CRD42017075208 .


Subject(s)
Health Personnel , Implementation Science , Occupational Health , Surveys and Questionnaires/standards , Workplace/psychology , Germany , Humans , Language , Psychometrics , Reproducibility of Results , Translating
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...