Sitting versus standing work postures during simulated laparoscopic surgery: in terms of user preferences, comfort, performance and biomechanics.

Prolonged standing in surgery has been linked to an increased risk of musculoskeletal disorders. The aim of this study was to determine whether sitting could serve as an alternative work posture in laparoscopic procedures. Twenty medical students in their third and fourth years were recruited. Sitting and standing were compared at two task complexity levels on a laparoscopic surgery simulator. Measured variables included user posture preferences, perceived discomfort, performance and biomechanics. Electromyography data from the upper trapezius and erector spinae muscles were analysed. Results showed that posture did not affect surgical performance and erector spinae muscle activation. Sitting showed higher muscle activation at the trapezius muscles; however, perceived discomfort was unaffected. Most participants preferred sitting for the difficult task and standing for the easy task. Findings showed that sitting, with appropriate seat design considerations, could serve as an alternative or even as a preferred work posture for simulated laparoscopic procedures.

Prolonged standing in surgery has been linked to increased musculoskeletal disorder risks. This study investigated sitting as a potential alternative work posture to standing. Both postures were tested during simulated laparoscopic procedures. Results showed that sitting can serve as an alternative or even preferred work posture for simulated laparoscopic surgery.

All-Cause, Cardiovascular and Respiratory Mortality in People with Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in England: A Cohort Study Using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).

Background: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common non-communicable diseases. Both have an inflammatory nature and similar risk factors, and there is overlap and interaction between them. To date, there is a lack of research on outcomes in people that have both conditions. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the presence of COPD in people with T2D was associated with an increased risk of all-cause, respiratory-cause and cardiovascular-cause mortality. Methods: A three-year cohort study (2017-19) was done using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database. The study population was 121,563 people with T2D aged ≥40. The exposure was COPD status at baseline. Incident rates for all-cause, respiratory-cause and cardiovascular-cause mortality were calculated. Poisson models for each outcome were fitted to estimate rate ratios for COPD status adjusted for age, sex, Index of Multiple Deprivation, smoking status, body mass index, prior asthma and cardiovascular disease. Results: COPD was present in 12.1% people with T2D. People with COPD had a higher all-cause mortality rate (448.7 persons per 1000 person years) compared with people without COPD (296.6 persons per 1000 person years). People with COPD also had substantially higher respiratory mortality incidence rates and moderately raised cardiovascular mortality rates. Fully adjusted Poisson models showed that people with COPD had a 1.23 (95% CI 1.21, 1.24) times higher rate of all-cause mortality as compared with those without COPD and a 3.03 (95% CI 2.89, 3.18) times higher rate of respiratory-cause mortality. There was no evidence of an association with cardiovascular mortality after adjusting for existing cardiovascular disease. Conclusion: Co-morbid COPD in people with T2D was associated with increased mortality overall and particularly from respiratory causes. People with both COPD and T2D are a high-risk group who would benefit from particularly intensive management of both conditions.

Reporting of conflicts of interest by authors of primary studies on health policy and systems research: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and types of conflict of interest (COI) disclosed by authors of primary studies of health policy and systems research (HPSR). DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional survey using standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data extraction. We conducted descriptive analyses. SETTING: We collected data from papers published in 2016 in 'health policy and service journals' category in Web of Science database. PARTICIPANTS: We included primary studies (eg, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, qualitative studies) of HPSR published in English in 2016 peer-reviewed health policy and services journals. OUTCOME MEASURES: Reported COI disclosures including whether authors reported COI or not, form in which COI disclosures were provided, number of authors per paper who report any type of COI, number of authors per paper who report specific types and subtypes of COI. RESULTS: We included 200 eligible primary studies of which 132 (66%) included COI disclosure statements of authors. Of the 132 studies, 19 (14%) had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI and the most frequently reported type was individual financial COI (n=15, 11%). None of the authors reported individual intellectual COIs or personal COIs. Financial and individual COIs were reported more frequently compared with non-financial and institutional COIs. CONCLUSION: A low percentage of HPSR primary studies included authors reporting COI. Non-financial or institutional COIs were the least reported types of COI.

The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Academics in all disciplines increasingly use social media to share their publications on the internet, reaching out to different audiences. In the last few years, specific indicators of social media impact have been developed (eg, Altmetrics), to complement traditional bibliometric indicators (eg, citation count and h-index). In health research, it is unclear whether social media impact also translates into research impact. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the impact of using social media on the dissemination of health research. The secondary aim was to assess the correlation between Altmetrics and traditional citation-based metrics. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify studies that evaluated the use of social media to disseminate research published in health-related journals. We specifically looked at studies that described experimental or correlational studies linking the use of social media with outcomes related to bibliometrics. We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases using a predefined search strategy (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42017057709). We conducted independent and duplicate study selection and data extraction. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, we summarized the findings through a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Of a total of 18,624 retrieved citations, we included 51 studies: 7 (14%) impact studies (answering the primary aim) and 44 (86%) correlational studies (answering the secondary aim). Impact studies reported mixed results with several limitations, including the use of interventions of inappropriately low intensity and short duration. The majority of correlational studies suggested a positive association between traditional bibliometrics and social media metrics (eg, number of mentions) in health research. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified suggestive yet inconclusive evidence on the impact of using social media to increase the number of citations in health research. Further studies with better design are needed to assess the causal link between social media impact and bibliometrics.