Dataset Information

Global Association of Cold Spells and Adverse Health Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: There is substantial evidence that mortality increases in low temperatures. Less is known about the role of prolonged cold periods denoted as cold spells.We conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence on the adverse health effects of cold spells in varying climates.Four databases (Ovid Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched for all years and languages available. "Cold spell" was defined as an event below a temperature threshold lasting for a minimum duration of 2 days. Of 1,527 identified articles, 26 satisfied our eligibility criteria for the systematic review, and 9 were eligible for meta-analyses. The articles were grouped by the three main study questions into Overall-effect Group, Added-effect Group, and Temperature-change-effect Group.Based on random-effects models in the meta-analyses, cold spells were associated with increased mortality from all or all nonaccidental causes (summary rate ratio = 1.10; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.17 based on 9 estimates from five studies), cardiovascular diseases (1.11; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.19; 12 estimates from eight studies), and respiratory diseases (1.21; 95% CI: 0.97, 1.51; 8 estimates from four studies). Estimated associations were stronger for people ? 65 years of age (1.06; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.12) than for people 0-64 years of age (1.01; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.03). Study-specific effect estimates from a limited number of studies suggested an increased morbidity related to cold spells, but it was not possible to quantitatively summarize the evidence.Cold spells are associated with increased mortality rates in populations around the world. The body of evidence suggests that cold spells also have other adverse health effects. There was substantial heterogeneity among the studies, which should be taken into account in the interpretation of the results.Ryti NR, Guo Y, Jaakkola JJ. 2016. Global association of cold spells and adverse health effects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect 124:12-22; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408104.

SUBMITTER: Ryti NR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4710591 | biostudies-other | 2016 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Global Association of Cold Spells and Adverse Health Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ryti Niilo R I NR Guo Yuming Y Jaakkola Jouni J K JJ

Environmental health perspectives 20150515 1

<h4>Background</h4>There is substantial evidence that mortality increases in low temperatures. Less is known about the role of prolonged cold periods denoted as cold spells.<h4>Objective</h4>We conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence on the adverse health effects of cold spells in varying climates.<h4>Data sources and extraction</h4>Four databases (Ovid Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched for all years and languages available. "Cold sp ...[more]

PMID: 25978526

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background3 billion people worldwide rely on polluting fuels and technologies for domestic cooking and heating. We estimate the global, regional, and national health burden associated with exposure to household air pollution.MethodsFor the systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched four databases for studies published from database inception to April 2, 2020, that evaluated the risk of adverse cardiorespiratory, paediatric, and maternal outcomes from exposure to household air pollution, compared with no exposure. We used a random-effects model to calculate disease-specific relative risk (RR) meta-estimates. Household air pollution exposure was defined as use of polluting fuels (coal, wood, charcoal, agricultural wastes, animal dung, or kerosene) for household cooking or heating. Temporal trends in mortality and disease burden associated with household air pollution, as measured by disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), were estimated from 2000 to 2017 using exposure prevalence data from 183 of 193 UN member states. 95% CIs were estimated by propagating uncertainty from the RR meta-estimates, prevalence of household air pollution exposure, and disease-specific mortality and burden estimates using a simulation-based approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019125060.Findings476 studies (15·5 million participants) from 123 nations (99 [80%] of which were classified as low-income and middle-income) met the inclusion criteria. Household air pollution was positively associated with asthma (RR 1·23, 95% CI 1·11-1·36), acute respiratory infection in both adults (1·53, 1·22-1·93) and children (1·39, 1·29-1·49), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1·70, 1·47-1·97), lung cancer (1·69, 1·44-1·98), and tuberculosis (1·26, 1·08-1·48); cerebrovascular disease (1·09, 1·04-1·14) and ischaemic heart disease (1·10, 1·09-1·11); and low birthweight (1·36, 1·19-1·55) and stillbirth (1·22, 1·06-1·41); as well as with under-5 (1·25, 1·18-1·33), respiratory (1·19, 1·18-1·20), and cardiovascular (1·07, 1·04-1·11) mortality. Household air pollution was associated with 1·8 million (95% CI 1·1-2·7) deaths and 60·9 million (34·6-93·3) DALYs in 2017, with the burden overwhelmingly experienced in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs; 60·8 million [34·6-92·9] DALYs) compared with high-income countries (0·09 million [0·01-0·40] DALYs). From 2000, mortality associated with household air pollution had reduced by 36% (95% CI 29-43) and disease burden by 30% (25-36), with the greatest reductions observed in higher-income nations.InterpretationThe burden of cardiorespiratory, paediatric, and maternal diseases associated with household air pollution has declined worldwide but remains high in the world's poorest regions. Urgent integrated health and energy strategies are needed to reduce the adverse health impact of household air pollution, especially in LMICs.FundingBritish Heart Foundation, Wellcome Trust.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the association between antihypertensive treatment and specific adverse events.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials of adults receiving antihypertensives compared with placebo or no treatment, more antihypertensive drugs compared with fewer antihypertensive drugs, or higher blood pressure targets compared with lower targets. To avoid small early phase trials, studies were required to have at least 650 patient years of follow-up.Information sourcesSearches were conducted in Embase, Medline, CENTRAL, and the Science Citation Index databases from inception until 14 April 2020.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was falls during trial follow-up. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury, fractures, gout, hyperkalaemia, hypokalaemia, hypotension, and syncope. Additional outcomes related to death and major cardiovascular events were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and random effects meta-analysis was used to pool rate ratios, odds ratios, and hazard ratios across studies, allowing for between study heterogeneity (?2).ResultsOf 15?023 articles screened for inclusion, 58 randomised controlled trials were identified, including 280?638 participants followed up for a median of 3 (interquartile range 2-4) years. Most of the trials (n=40, 69%) had a low risk of bias. Among seven trials reporting data for falls, no evidence was found of an association with antihypertensive treatment (summary risk ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.24, ?2=0.009). Antihypertensives were associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury (1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.39, ?2=0.037, n=15), hyperkalaemia (1.89, 1.56 to 2.30, ?2=0.122, n=26), hypotension (1.97, 1.67 to 2.32, ?2=0.132, n=35), and syncope (1.28, 1.03 to 1.59, ?2=0.050, n=16). The heterogeneity between studies assessing acute kidney injury and hyperkalaemia events was reduced when focusing on drugs that affect the renin angiotensin-aldosterone system. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses focusing on adverse events leading to withdrawal from each trial. Antihypertensive treatment was associated with a reduced risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and stroke, but not of myocardial infarction.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis found no evidence to suggest that antihypertensive treatment is associated with falls but found evidence of an association with mild (hyperkalaemia, hypotension) and severe adverse events (acute kidney injury, syncope). These data could be used to inform shared decision making between doctors and patients about initiation and continuation of antihypertensive treatment, especially in patients at high risk of harm because of previous adverse events or poor renal function.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42018116860.

Project description:BackgroundAntidepressants are widely used in the treatment of chronic pain. Applied doses are lower than those needed to unfold an antidepressive effect. While efficacy of antidepressants for chronic pain has been reported in large randomized-controlled trials (RCT), there is inconsistent data on adverse effects and tolerability. We aimed at synthesizing data from RCT to explore adverse effect profiles and tolerability of antidepressants for treatment of chronic pain.MethodsSystematic literature research and meta-analyses were performed regarding side effects and safety of different antidepressants in the treatment of chronic pain according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The National Center for Biotechnology Information library and MEDLINE were searched. Randomized placebo-controlled trials were included in quantitative data synthesis.ResultsOut of 1,975 screened articles, 33 papers published between 1995 and 2015 were included in our review and 23 studies were included in the meta-analyses. A higher risk for adverse effects compared to placebo was observed in all antidepressants included in our analyses, except nortriptyline. The most prevalent adverse effects were dry mouth, dizziness, nausea, headache, and constipation. Amitriptyline, mirtazapine, desipramine, venlafaxine, fluoxetine, and nortriptyline showed the highest placebo effect-adjusted risk of adverse effects. Risk for withdrawal due to adverse effects was highest in desipramine (risk ratio: 4.09, 95%-confidence interval [1.31; 12.82]) followed by milnacipran, venlafaxine, and duloxetine. The most common adverse effects under treatment with antidepressants were dry mouth, dizziness, nausea, headache, and constipation followed by palpitations, sweating, and drowsiness. However, overall tolerability was high. Each antidepressant showed distinct risk profiles of adverse effects.ConclusionOur synthesized data analysis confirmed overall tolerability of low-dose antidepressants for the treatment of chronic pain and revealed drug specific risk profiles. This encompassing characterization of adverse effect profiles might be useful in defining multimodal treatment regimens for chronic pain which also consider patients' comorbidities and co-medication.

Project description:BackgroundVarious types of framing can influence risk perceptions, which may have an impact on treatment decisions and adherence. One way of framing is the use of verbal terms in communicating the probabilities of treatment effects. We systematically reviewed the comparative effects of words versus numbers in communicating the probability of adverse effects to consumers in written health information.MethodsNine electronic databases were searched up to November 2012. Teams of two reviewers independently assessed studies.Inclusion criteriarandomised controlled trials; verbal versus numerical presentation; context: written consumer health information.ResultsTen trials were included. Participants perceived probabilities presented in verbal terms as higher than in numeric terms: commonly used verbal descriptors systematically led to an overestimation of the absolute risk of adverse effects (Range of means: 3% - 54%). Numbers also led to an overestimation of probabilities, but the overestimation was smaller (2% - 20%). The difference in means ranged from 3.8% to 45.9%, with all but one comparison showing significant results. Use of numbers increased satisfaction with the information (MD: 0.48 [CI: 0.32 to 0.63], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) and likelihood of medication use (MD for very common side effects: 1.45 [CI: 0.78 to 2.11], p = 0.0001, I2 = 68%; MD for common side effects: 0.90 [CI: 0.61 to 1.19], p < 0.00001, I2 = 1%; MD for rare side effects: 0.39 [0.02 to 0.76], p = 0.04, I2 = not applicable). Outcomes were measured on a 6-point Likert scale, suggesting small to moderate effects.ConclusionsVerbal descriptors including "common", "uncommon" and "rare" lead to an overestimation of the probability of adverse effects compared to numerical information, if used as previously suggested by the European Commission. Numbers result in more accurate estimates and increase satisfaction and likelihood of medication use. Our review suggests that providers of consumer health information should quantify treatment effects numerically. Future research should focus on the impact of personal and contextual factors, use representative samples or be conducted in real life settings, measure behavioral outcomes and address whether benefit information can be described verbally.

Project description:ImportancePsilocybin has been studied in the treatment of depression and anxiety disorders. Clinical studies have mainly focused on efficacy, with systematic reviews showing favorable efficacy; however, none have primarily focused on psilocybin safety.ObjectiveTo evaluate the acute adverse effects of psilocybin at therapeutic doses in the treatment of depression and anxiety.Data sourcesMEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for publications available between 1966 and November 30, 2023.Study selectionRandomized, double-blind clinical trials that reported adverse effects of psilocybin in patients treated for depression and anxiety were screened.Data extraction and synthesisData were independently extracted by 2 authors and verified by 2 additional authors following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. The inverse variance method with the Hartung-Knapp adjustment for the random-effects model was used, with a continuity correction of 0.5 for studies with 0 cell frequencies. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by sequentially removing 1 study at a time to assess the robustness of the results.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was considered as the adverse effects of psilocybin at high and moderate (ie, therapeutic) dose regimens and compared with placebo, low-dose psilocybin, or other comparator in the treatment of depression and/or anxiety.ResultsSix studies met the inclusion criteria with a total sample of 528 participants (approximately 51% female; median age 39.8 years; IQR, 39.8-41.2). Seven adverse effects were reported in multiple studies and included in the analysis. Among these, headache (relative risk [RR], 1.99; 95% CI 1.06-3.74), nausea (RR, 8.85; 95% CI, 5.68-13.79), anxiety (RR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.11-4.64), dizziness (RR, 5.81; 95% CI, 1.02-33.03), and elevated blood pressure (RR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.15- 4.53) were statistically significant. Psilocybin use was not associated with risk of paranoia and transient thought disorder.Conclusions and relevanceIn this meta-analysis, the acute adverse effect profile of therapeutic single-dose psilocybin appeared to be tolerable and resolved within 48 hours. However, future studies need to more actively evaluate the appropriate management of adverse effects.

Dataset Information

Global Association of Cold Spells and Adverse Health Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Global Association of Cold Spells and Adverse Health Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets