Prevalence and incidence of venous thromboembolism in geriatric patients admitted to long-term care hospitals.

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) increases with age. However, the risk of VTE in the setting of long-term care hospitals is understudied. Our objective was to provide data on the prevalence and incidence of VTE in older adults admitted to long-term care hospitals. In this retrospective cohort study, we collected data about chronically ill and multimorbid patients aged 65 years and older from two long-term care hospitals. The primary endpoint of this study was the lifetime prevalence of VTE, and the secondary endpoint was VTE incidence during residency in long-term care hospitals. We analysed data from 1148 patients with a mean age of 84.1 ± 7.9 years, of whom 74.2% were women. The lifetime prevalence of VTE at baseline was 9.6% (95% CI 7.9-11.4). Cumulative incidence of VTE at 1, 2, and 3 years from baseline was estimated at 3.5% (95% CI 2.5-4.7), 4.2% (95% CI 3.1-5.5), and 5.4% (95% CI 4.1-7.0), respectively. Overall, the incidence rate of VTE in our study was 2.82 (95% CI 2.18-3.66) per 100 person-years. The study indicated a considerably high lifetime prevalence and incidence of VTE during residence in long-term care hospital settings, requiring further evaluation in larger prospective studies.

NPCC4: Concepts and tools for envisioning New York City's futures.

This chapter of the New York City Panel on Climate Change 4 (NPCC4) report discusses the many intersecting social, ecological, and technological-infrastructure dimensions of New York City (NYC) and their interactions that are critical to address in order to transition to and secure a climate-adapted future for all New Yorkers. The authors provide an assessment of current approaches to "future visioning and scenarios" across community and city-level initiatives and examine diverse dimensions of the NYC urban system to reduce risk and vulnerability and enable a future-adapted NYC. Methods for the integration of community and stakeholder ideas about what would make NYC thrive with scientific and technical information on the possibilities presented by different policies and actions are discussed. This chapter synthesizes the state of knowledge on how different communities of scholarship or practice envision futures and provides brief descriptions of the social-demographic and housing, transportation, energy, nature-based, and health futures and many other subsystems of the complex system of NYC that will all interact to determine NYC futures.

The costs of "costless" climate mitigation.

The IPCC and leading economic models have different ideas about emissions reduction costs.

Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk.

BACKGROUND: Screening mammography can detect breast cancer at an early stage. Supporters of adding ultrasonography to the screening regimen consider it a safe and inexpensive approach to reduce false-negative rates during screening. However, those opposed to it argue that performing supplemental ultrasonography will also increase the rate of false-positive findings and can lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography alone for breast cancer screening for women at average risk of breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov up until 3 May 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: For efficacy and harms, we considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled non-randomised studies enrolling at least 500 women at average risk for breast cancer between the ages of 40 and 75. We also included studies where 80% of the population met our age and breast cancer risk inclusion criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened abstracts and full texts, assessed risk of bias, and applied the GRADE approach. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on available event rates. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies: one RCT, two prospective cohort studies, and five retrospective cohort studies, enrolling 209,207 women with a follow-up duration from one to three years. The proportion of women with dense breasts ranged from 48% to 100%. Five studies used digital mammography; one study used breast tomosynthesis; and two studies used automated breast ultrasonography (ABUS) in addition to mammography screening. One study used digital mammography alone or in combination with breast tomosynthesis and ABUS or handheld ultrasonography. Six of the eight studies evaluated the rate of cancer cases detected after one screening round, whilst two studies screened women once, twice, or more. None of the studies assessed whether mammography screening in combination with ultrasonography led to lower mortality from breast cancer or all-cause mortality. High certainty evidence from one trial showed that screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography detects more breast cancer than mammography alone. The J-START (Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomised Trial), enrolling 72,717 asymptomatic women, had a low risk of bias and found that two additional breast cancers per 1000 women were detected over two years with one additional ultrasonography than with mammography alone (5 versus 3 per 1000; RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.94). Low certainty evidence showed that the percentage of invasive tumours was similar, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (69.6% (128 of 184) versus 73.5% (86 of 117); RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.09). However, positive lymph node status was detected less frequently in women with invasive cancer who underwent mammography screening in combination with ultrasonography than in women who underwent mammography alone (18% (23 of 128) versus 34% (29 of 86); RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.86; moderate certainty evidence). Further, interval carcinomas occurred less frequently in the group screened by mammography and ultrasonography compared with mammography alone (5 versus 10 in 10,000 women; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89; 72,717 participants; high certainty evidence). False-negative results were less common when ultrasonography was used in addition to mammography than with mammography alone: 9% (18 of 202) versus 23% (35 of 152; RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.66; moderate certainty evidence). However, the number of false-positive results and necessary biopsies were higher in the group with additional ultrasonography screening. Amongst 1000 women who do not have cancer, 37 more received a false-positive result when they participated in screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography than with mammography alone (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.50; high certainty evidence). Compared to mammography alone, for every 1000 women participating in screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography, 27 more women will have a biopsy (RR 2.49, 95% CI 2.28 to 2.72; high certainty evidence). Results from cohort studies with methodological limitations confirmed these findings. A secondary analysis of the J-START provided results from 19,213 women with dense and non-dense breasts. In women with dense breasts, the combination of mammography and ultrasonography detected three more cancer cases (0 fewer to 7 more) per 1000 women screened than mammography alone (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.72; 11,390 participants; high certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of three cohort studies with data from 50,327 women with dense breasts supported this finding, showing that mammography and ultrasonography combined led to statistically significantly more diagnosed cancer cases compared to mammography alone (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.56; 50,327 participants; moderate certainty evidence). For women with non-dense breasts, the secondary analysis of the J-START study demonstrated that more cancer cases were detected when adding ultrasound to mammography screening compared to mammography alone (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.68; 7823 participants; moderate certainty evidence), whilst two cohort studies with data from 40,636 women found no statistically significant difference between the two screening methods (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.49; low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on one study in women at average risk of breast cancer, ultrasonography in addition to mammography leads to more screening-detected breast cancer cases. For women with dense breasts, cohort studies more in line with real-life clinical practice confirmed this finding, whilst cohort studies for women with non-dense breasts showed no statistically significant difference between the two screening interventions. However, the number of false-positive results and biopsy rates were higher in women receiving additional ultrasonography for breast cancer screening. None of the included studies analysed whether the higher number of screen-detected cancers in the intervention group resulted in a lower mortality rate compared to mammography alone. Randomised controlled trials or prospective cohort studies with a longer observation period are needed to assess the effects of the two screening interventions on morbidity and mortality.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Efficacy of Locally Delivered Adjunctive Curcumin (Curcuma longa L.) in the Treatment of Periodontitis.

This meta-analysis intended to assess evidence on the efficacy of locally delivered curcumin/turmeric as an adjunctive to scaling and root planing (SRP), on clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing pocket depth (PPD), compared to SRP alone or in combination with chlorhexidine (CHX). RCTs were identified from PubMed, Cochrane Library, BASE, LIVIVO, Dentistry Oral Sciences Source, MEDLINE Complete, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and eLibrary, until August 2022. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed by pooling mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Out of 827 references yielded by the search, 23 trials meeting the eligibility criteria were included. The meta-analysis revealed that SRP and curcumin/turmeric application were statistically significantly different compared to SRP alone for CAL (-0.33 mm; p = 0.03; 95% CI -0.54 to -0.11; I2 = 62.3%), and for PPD (-0.47 mm; p = 0.024; 95% CI -0.88 to -0.06; I2 = 95.5%); however, this difference was considered clinically meaningless. No significant differences were obtained between patients treated with SRP and CHX, compared to SRP and curcumin/turmeric. The RoB assessment revealed numerous inaccuracies, thus raising concerns about previous overestimates of potential treatment effects.

Cost-Effectiveness of First- and Second-Step Treatment Strategies for Major Depressive Disorder : A Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the most prevalent, disabling form of depression, with a high economic effect. PURPOSE: To assess evidence on cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions as first- and second-step treatments in patients with MDD. DATA SOURCES: Multiple electronic databases limited to English language were searched (1 January 2015 to 29 November 2022). STUDY SELECTION: Two investigators independently screened the literature. Seven economic modeling studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Data abstraction by a single investigator was confirmed by a second; 2 investigators independently rated risk of bias. One investigator determined certainty of evidence, and another checked for plausibility. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven modeling studies met the eligibility criteria. In a U.S. setting over a 5-year time horizon, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was cost-effective compared with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) as a first-step treatment from the societal and health care sector perspectives. However, the certainty of evidence is low, and the findings should be interpreted cautiously. For second-step treatment, only switch strategies between SGAs were assessed. The evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions. LIMITATIONS: Methodologically heterogeneous studies, which compared only CBT and some SGAs, were included. No evidence on other psychotherapies or complementary and alternative treatments as first-step treatment or augmentation strategies as second-step treatment was available. CONCLUSION: Although CBT may be cost-effective compared with SGAs as a first-step treatment at a 5-year time horizon from the societal and health care sector perspectives, the certainty of evidence is low, and the findings need to be interpreted cautiously. For other comparisons, the evidence was entirely missing or insufficient to draw conclusions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians.

Values and Preferences of Patients With Depressive Disorders Regarding Pharmacologic and Nonpharmacologic Treatments : A Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Developers of clinical practice guidelines need to take patient values and preferences into consideration when weighing benefits and harms of treatment options for depressive disorder. PURPOSE: To assess patient values and preferences regarding pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments of depressive disorder. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid) and PsycINFO (EBSCO) were searched for eligible studies published from 1 January 2014 to 30 November 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Pairs of reviewers independently screened 30% of search results. The remaining 70% of the abstracts were screened by single reviewers; excluded abstracts were checked by a second reviewer. Pairs of reviewers independently screened full texts. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence, and a second reviewer checked for completeness and accuracy. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: The review included 11 studies: 4 randomized controlled trials, 5 cross-sectional studies, and 2 qualitative studies. In 1 randomized controlled trial, participants reported at the start of therapy that they expected supportive-expressive psychotherapy and antidepressants to yield similar improvements. A cross-sectional study reported that non-Hispanic White participants and men generally preferred antidepressants over talk therapy, whereas Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black participants and women generally did not have a preference. Another cross-sectional study reported that the most important nonserious adverse events for patients treated with antidepressants were insomnia, anxiety, fatigue, weight gain, agitation, and sexual dysfunction. For other comparisons and outcomes, no conclusions could be drawn because of the insufficient certainty of evidence. LIMITATIONS: The main limitation of this review is the low or insufficient certainty of evidence for most outcomes. No evidence was available on second-step depression treatment or differences in values and preferences based on gender, race/ethnicity, age, and depression severity. CONCLUSION: Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be some differences in preferences for talk therapy or pharmacologic treatment of depressive disorders based on gender or race/ethnicity. In addition, low-certainty evidence suggests that insomnia, anxiety, fatigue, weight gain, agitation, and sexual dysfunction may be the most important nonserious adverse events for patients treated with antidepressants. Evidence is lacking or insufficient to draw any further conclusions about patients' weighing or valuation of the benefits and harms of depression treatments. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020212442).

Nonpharmacologic and Pharmacologic Treatments of Adult Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for a Clinical Guideline by the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Primary care patients and clinicians may prefer alternative options to second-generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD). PURPOSE: To compare the benefits and harms of nonpharmacologic treatments with second-generation antidepressants as first-step interventions for acute MDD, and to compare second-step treatment strategies for patients who did not achieve remission after an initial attempt with antidepressants. DATA SOURCES: English-language studies from several electronic databases from 1 January 1990 to 8 August 2022, trial registries, gray literature databases, and reference lists to identify unpublished research. STUDY SELECTION: 2 investigators independently selected randomized trials of at least 6 weeks' duration. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers abstracted data about study design and conduct, participants, interventions, and outcomes. They dually rated the risk of bias of studies and the certainty of evidence for outcomes of interest. DATA SYNTHESIS: 65 randomized trials met the inclusion criteria; eligible data from nonrandomized studies were not found. Meta-analyses and network meta-analyses indicated similar benefits of most nonpharmacologic treatments and antidepressants as first-step treatments. Antidepressants had higher risks for discontinuation because of adverse events than most other treatments. For second-step therapies, different switching and augmentation strategies provided similar symptomatic relief. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons is low; findings should be interpreted cautiously. LIMITATIONS: Many studies had methodological limitations or dosing inequalities; publication bias might have affected some comparisons. In some cases, conclusions could not be drawn because of insufficient evidence. CONCLUSION: Although benefits seem to be similar among first- and second-step MDD treatments, the certainty of evidence is low for most comparisons. Clinicians and patients should focus on options with the most reliable evidence and take adverse event profiles and patient preferences into consideration. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020204703).

Risk of Contrast-Associated Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Peripheral Angiography with Carbon Dioxide Compared to Iodine-Containing Contrast Agents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the comparative evidence on the risk of contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI) with CO2 or iodinated contrast medium (ICM) for peripheral vascular interventions. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, Epistemonikos, PubMed-similar-articles, clinical trial registries, journal websites, and reference lists up to February 2022. We included studies comparing the risk of CA-AKI in patients who received CO2 or ICM for peripheral angiography with or without endovascular intervention. Two reviewers screened the references and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We extracted data on study population, interventions and outcomes. For the risk of CA-AKI as our primary outcome of interest, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and performed random-effects meta-analyses. We identified three RCTs and five cohort studies that fully met our eligibility criteria. Based on a random-effects meta-analysis, the risk of CA-AKI was lower with CO2 compared to ICM (8.6% vs. 15.2%; RR, 0.59; 95% CI 0.33-1.04). Only limited results from a few studies were available on procedure and fluoroscopy time, radiation dose and CO2-related adverse events. The evidence suggests that the use of CO2 for peripheral vascular interventions reduces the risk of CA-AKI compared to ICM. However, due to the relevant residual risk of CA-AKI with the use of CO2, other AKI risk factors must be considered in patients undergoing peripheral vascular interventions.

Characteristics and recovery methods of studies falsely excluded during literature screening-a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Due to the growing need to provide evidence syntheses under time constraints, researchers have begun focusing on the exploration of rapid review methods, which often employ single-reviewer literature screening. However, single-reviewer screening misses, on average, 13% of relevant studies, compared to 3% with dual-reviewer screening. Little guidance exists regarding methods to recover studies falsely excluded during literature screening. Likewise, it is unclear whether specific study characteristics can predict an increased risk of false exclusion. This systematic review aimed to identify supplementary search methods that can be used to recover studies falsely excluded during literature screening. Moreover, it strove to identify study-level predictors that indicate an elevated risk of false exclusions of studies during literature screening. METHODS: We performed literature searches for eligible studies in MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Current Contents Connect, Embase, Epistemonikos.org, and Information Science & Technology Abstracts from 1999 to June 23, 2020. We searched for gray literature, checked reference lists, and conducted hand searches in two relevant journals and similar article searches current to January 28, 2021. Two investigators independently screened the literature; one investigator performed the data extraction, and a second investigator checked for correctness and completeness. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies. We synthesized the results narratively. RESULTS: Three method studies, two with a case-study design and one with a case-series design, met the inclusion criteria. One study reported that all falsely excluded publications (8%) could be recovered through reference list checking compared to other supplementary search methods. No included methods study analyzed the impact of recovered studies on conclusions or meta-analyses. Two studies reported that up to 8% of studies were falsely excluded due to uninformative titles and abstracts, and one study showed that 11% of non-English studies were falsely excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limited evidence based on two case studies and one case series, we can draw no firm conclusion about the most reliable and most valid method to recover studies falsely excluded during literature screening or about the characteristics that might predict a higher risk of false exclusion. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/v2pjr/.

Epidemiology, risk profile, management, and outcome in geriatric patients with atrial fibrillation in two long-term care hospitals.

Aim of this study was investigate the prevalence and incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and to describe the clinical characteristics, risk profiles, and types of anticoagulant therapy for stroke prevention and the clinical outcomes in persons admitted to a long-term care hospital. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the electronic medical records of patients aged 65 years or older living in two long-term care hospitals between January 1, 2014 and October 31, 2017. Overall data from 1148 patients (mean age 84.1 ± 7.9 years, 74.2% women) were analyzed. At baseline, the median CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4 (IQR 3-5) and the HAS-BLED score 2 (IQR 2-3). We observed patients over a median period of 3.7 years. The point prevalence of AF was 29.6% (95% CI 25.8-33.7) on January 1, 2014. The 1-year cumulative incidence of de novo AF was 4.0% (2.8-5.6). Oral anticoagulants were prescribed in 48% of patients with AF. The cumulative incidence at 1 year for a composite outcome of TIA, stroke, or systemic arterial embolism was 0.6% (0.1-3.1) and 1.7% (0.5-4.6) and for bleeding 2.6% (0.9-6.2) and 1.8% (0.5-4.8) in patients with AF and oral anticoagulants or no oral anticoagulants, respectively. In long-term care hospital patients, we observed a high burden of AF. However, only about half of patients with AF received oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention.

Searching two or more databases decreased the risk of missing relevant studies: a metaresearch study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Assessing changes in coverage, recall, review, conclusions and references not found when searching fewer databases. METHODS: In randomly selected 60 Cochrane reviews, we checked included study publications' coverage (indexation) and recall (findability) using different search approaches with MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL and related them to authors' conclusions and certainty. We assessed characteristics of unfound references. RESULTS: Overall 1989/2080 included references, were indexed in ≥1 database (coverage = 96%). In reviews where using one of our search approaches would not change conclusions and certainty (n = 44-54), median coverage and recall were highest (range 87.9%-100.0% and 78.2%-93.3%, respectively). Here, searching ≥2 databases reached >95% coverage and ≥87.9% recall. In reviews with unchanged conclusions but less certainty (n = 2-8): 63.3%-79.3% coverage and 45.0%-75.0% recall. In reviews with opposite conclusions (n = 1-3): 63.3%-96.6% and 52.1%-78.7%. In reviews where a conclusion was no longer possible (n = 3-7): 60.6%-86.0% and 20.0%-53.8%. The 265 references that were indexed but unfound were more often abstractless (30% vs. 11%) and older (28% vs. 17% published before 1991) than found references. CONCLUSION: Searching ≥2 databases improves coverage and recall and decreases the risk of missing eligible studies. If researchers suspect that relevant articles are difficult to find, supplementary search methods should be used.

Climate risk is financial risk.

Should businesses worry about climate risk because doing so is good for their bottom line, or because their responsibilities ought to go beyond mere financial returns to shareholders? What if expanding one's lens to include environmental, social, and corporate governance turns out to be good for business? What if not? These fundamental questions lie at the core of numerous ambitious efforts to align tools and resources of finance with global action to address climate change. And they have been raised again with alarm in recent weeks after the head of responsible investment for HSBC Asset Management, appearing at a Financial Times "Moral Money" event, gave a talk that was neither responsible nor moral.

Cholesterol and glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Intraocular pressure is the main risk factor for glaucoma; however, additional risk factors may also matter. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to summarize the evidence regarding the association of cholesterol parameters (total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels) and glaucoma. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched for all publications containing 'glaucoma' and one of various forms of 'cholesterol' or 'lipoprotein'. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and potentially full texts of identified articles for eligibility. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to investigate the differences in total cholesterol, LDL and HDL levels between patients with and without glaucoma. RESULTS: Overall, 29 observational studies were included in the systematic review and 26 reported quantitative information to investigate differences in cholesterol parameters between patients with glaucoma (N = 7196) and patients without glaucoma (N = 350 441). Patients with glaucoma had significantly higher total cholesterol levels than patients without glaucoma (Mean Difference (MD) 7.9 mg/dl, 95% CI 3.3 to 12.5, p = 0.001) and lower mean HDL levels (MD -2.0 mg/dl, 95% CI: -3.1 to -0.9, p = 0.001). Patients with glaucoma had higher mean LDL levels than patients without glaucoma, albeit not statistically significant (MD 6.1 mg/dl, 95% CI: -4.3 to 16.4, p = 0.251). CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies found an association of glaucoma and high total cholesterol and low HDL levels, respectively. Although this supports the hypothesis that lipid levels pose an additional risk for glaucoma development, heterogeneity was substantial and causality cannot be presumed from identified observational studies.

Social science research to inform solar geoengineering.

What are the benefits and drawbacks, and for whom?.

Economic impacts of tipping points in the climate system.

Climate scientists have long emphasized the importance of climate tipping points like thawing permafrost, ice sheet disintegration, and changes in atmospheric circulation. Yet, save for a few fragmented studies, climate economics has either ignored them or represented them in highly stylized ways. We provide unified estimates of the economic impacts of all eight climate tipping points covered in the economic literature so far using a meta-analytic integrated assessment model (IAM) with a modular structure. The model includes national-level climate damages from rising temperatures and sea levels for 180 countries, calibrated on detailed econometric evidence and simulation modeling. Collectively, climate tipping points increase the social cost of carbon (SCC) by ∼25% in our main specification. The distribution is positively skewed, however. We estimate an ∼10% chance of climate tipping points more than doubling the SCC. Accordingly, climate tipping points increase global economic risk. A spatial analysis shows that they increase economic losses almost everywhere. The tipping points with the largest effects are dissociation of ocean methane hydrates and thawing permafrost. Most of our numbers are probable underestimates, given that some tipping points, tipping point interactions, and impact channels have not been covered in the literature so far; however, our method of structural meta-analysis means that future modeling of climate tipping points can be integrated with relative ease, and we present a reduced-form tipping points damage function that could be incorporated in other IAMs.