Dataset Information

Adjusted fluoride concentrations and control ranges in 34 states - 2006-2010 and 2015.

ABSTRACT: To inform selection of a control range around the Public Health Service's recommended 0.7 mg/L drinking water fluoride concentration to prevent tooth decay, CDC's Water Fluoridation Reporting System data for 2006-2010 and 2015 were analyzed. Monthly average concentration data from 4,251 fluoride-adjusted community water systems for 191,266 of 255,060 system-months (2006-2010) were compared to control ranges 0.6 mg/L to 0.2 mg/L wide. Percentages of system-months within control ranges ?0.4 mg/L wide (e.g., ±0.2 mg/L) were >83% versus 68% for 0.2 mg/L wide (±0.1 mg/L). In 2015, 70% of adjusted systems maintained averages within ±0.1 mg/L of their system's annual average for 9 of 12 months, 67% used the 0.7 mg/L target and 45% used it with a ±0.1 mg/L control range. Adoption of the 0.7 mg/L target was underway but not completed in 2015. Control ranges narrower than ±0.2 mg/L may be feasible for monthly average fluoride concentration.

SUBMITTER: Barker LK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5798483 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adjusted fluoride concentrations and control ranges in 34 states - 2006-2010 and 2015.

Barker Laurie K LK Duchon Kip K KK Lesaja Srdjan S Robison Valerie A VA Presson Scott M SM

Journal - American Water Works Association 20170801 8

To inform selection of a control range around the Public Health Service's recommended 0.7 mg/L drinking water fluoride concentration to prevent tooth decay, CDC's Water Fluoridation Reporting System data for 2006-2010 and 2015 were analyzed. Monthly average concentration data from 4,251 fluoride-adjusted community water systems for 191,266 of 255,060 system-months (2006-2010) were compared to control ranges 0.6 mg/L to 0.2 mg/L wide. Percentages of system-months within control ranges ≥0.4 mg/L w ...[more]

PMID: 29416142

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although annual mortality trends for prostate cancer were stabilized in recent years, understanding the exact treatment changes is necessary for optimal management. Utilization of not-otherwise specified (NOS) treatments for prostate cancer was unclear. Thus, this study aimed to analyze trends in treatment for prostate cancer in the U.S. from 2010 to 2015 and examine whether the treatment for the prostate cancer in the U.S. is compliant with clinical practice guidelines. Using joinpoint regression models, we examined trends in the rate and proportion of age-standardized utilization (ASUR and ASUP) of treatments for prostate cancer diagnosed during 2010-2015 in the U.S. based on the data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER, 2018 data-release, with linkage to active surveillance/watchful waiting [AS/WW]) cancer registry program. Among 316,690 men with prostate cancer diagnosed during 2010-2015, ASUR and ASUP for radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, AS/WW and NOS treatment were 32.7, 34.4, 10.0 and 40.1 per 100,000, and 27.9%, 29.3%, 8.5% and 34.2%, respectively. Trends in the overall ASUR for prostate cancer treatments differed by cancer risk group, patients' age, race/ethnicity, Gleason score, insurance status, and the average education level, average poverty-level and foreign-born person percentage of the patient's residence-county, but not by rural-urban continuum or region. ASUP of radical prostatectomy decreased from 9.8% in 2010 to 4.8% in 2015 (annual percent change [APC] = -12.0%, 95% CI, -15.9 to -7.9%), and the decrease was observed in all different risk groups. ASUP of AS/WW increased from 16.4% in 2010 to 30.2% in 2013 (APC = 22.7%, 95% CI, 4.6 to 44.0%) and then remained stable through 2013 to 2015 (APC = 1.9%, 95% CI, -24.1 to 36.9%). The increasing tendency of AS/WW only occurred in the low-risk and intermediate-risk groups. The ASUP of NOS treatment has increased from 32.3% in 2010 to 36.8% in 2015 (P<0.01). In conclusion, ASUR and ASUP for prostate cancer treatments, including NOS treatment, had changed during 2010-2015. Their trends appeared to differ by cancer risk-group, age, race/ethnicity, Gleason score and socioeconomic factors. Future studies are warranted to understand the impacts of upward trends in ASUP of NOS treatments and AS/WW on patient survival and prostate cancer mortality.

Dataset Information

Adjusted fluoride concentrations and control ranges in 34 states - 2006-2010 and 2015.

Publications

Adjusted fluoride concentrations and control ranges in 34 states - 2006-2010 and 2015.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure