Musculoskeletal disorders and pain in agricultural workers in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Agricultural workers constitute two-thirds of the population of Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC) and are at increased risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) due to high-risk activities. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to synthesise the prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of musculoskeletal pain amongst agricultural workers to identify priority areas for prevention and development of early interventions. This systematic review and meta-analysis included Studies published from the inception of global electronic databases until 30 September 2022 were included. Prevalence estimates for MSDs among agricultural workers aged over 18 years in LMIC were extracted. Narrative synthesis summarized study findings and pooled estimates for 12-month pain prevalence were calculated. 7502 potential studies were identified. 64 studies (68,684 participants from 23 countries) were included in the systematic review; 33 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Low back pain was the most widely investigated symptom. The 12-month pooled prevalence of low back pain was highest in Africa [61.96% (45.69-76.22)] compared to Asia [54.16% (47.76-60.50)] and South/Central America [28.52%(10.91-50.33)]. Narrative synthesis found associations between MSDs, particular activities including heavy lifting and repetitive movements, and outcomes including reduced productivity. MSDs are common in agriculture workers in LMIC. Global prevalence of low back pain in farmers, particularly in Africa, is greater than in previously reported global prevalence in the general population. This may be attributed to environmental factors and high-risk activities which could be targeted for prevention and early intervention strategies to support individuals, prevent disability, and reduce loss of productivity.

The ACE (Albumin, CRP and Endoscopy) Index in Acute Colitis: A Simple Clinical Index on Admission that Predicts Outcome in Patients With Acute Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) steroids remain the first-line treatment for patients with acute ulcerative colitis (UC). However, 30% of patients do not respond to steroids, requiring second-line therapy and/or surgery. There are no existing indices that allow physicians to predict steroid nonresponse at admission. We aimed to determine if admission biochemical and endoscopic values could predict response to IV steroids. METHODS: All admissions for acute UC (ICD-10 K51) between November 1, 2011, and October 31, 2016 were identified. Case note review confirmed diagnosis; clinical, endoscopic, and laboratory data were collected. Steroid response was defined as discharge home with no further therapy for active UC. Nonresponse was defined as requirement for second-line therapy or surgery. Univariate and binary logistic regression analyses were employed to identify factors associated with steroid nonresponse. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-five acute UC admissions were identified, comprising both acute severe and acute nonsevere UC; 155 of the 235 patients (66.0%) responded to steroids. Admission C-reactive protein (CRP) (P = 0.009, odds ratio [OR] 1.006), albumin (P < 0.001, OR 0.894) and endoscopic severity (P < 0.001, OR 3.166) differed significantly between responders and nonresponders. A simple UC severity score (area under the curve [AUC] 0.754, P < 0.001) was derived from these variables; 78.1% (25 of 32) of patients with concurrent CRP ≥50 mg/L, albumin ≤30 g/L, and increased endoscopic severity (severe on physician's global assessment) (maximum score = 3) did not respond to IV steroids (positive predictive value [PPV] 78.1%, negative predictive value [NPV] 87.1%). CONCLUSIONS: More than three quarters of patients scoring 3 (albumin ≤30 g/L, CRP ≥50 mg/L, and increased endoscopic severity) did not respond to IV steroids. This combination of parameters (ACE) identifies on admission a high-risk population who may benefit from earlier second-line medical treatment or surgical intervention.