Assessment of hearing and vision impairment in cohort studies collecting cognitive data in older adults.

INTRODUCTION: There are no standard practices for considering sensory impairment in studies measuring cognitive function among older adults. Exclusion of participants with impairments may inaccurately estimate the prevalence of cognitive impairment and dementia. METHODS: We surveyed prospective cohort studies measuring cognitive function in older adults, determined the proportion that excluded participants based on sensory impairment and the proportion that assessed each type of sensory impairment, and described the methods of sensory assessment. RESULTS: Investigators/staff from 85 (of 192 cohorts) responded; 6 (7%) excluded participants with severe impairment; 80 (94%) measured hearing and/or vision impairment, while 5 (6%) measured neither. Thirty-two (38%) cohorts assessed hearing objectively and 45 (53%) assessed vision objectively. DISCUSSION: Findings indicate variation in methods used to assess sensory impairment, with potential implications for resource allocation. To ensure equitable inclusion of study participants, consensus is needed on best practices standardized protocols for assessment and accommodations of sensory impairment.

Digital Strategies to Improve Food Assistance in Disasters: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: Modern digital strategies, including Internet of Things, machine learning, and mobile applications, have revolutionized situational awareness during disaster management. Despite their importance, no review of digital strategies to support emergency food security efforts has been conducted. This scoping review fills that gap. METHODS: Keywords were defined within the concepts of food assistance, digital technology, and disasters. After the database searches, PRISMA guidelines were followed to perform a partnered, 2-round scoping literature review. RESULTS: The search identified 3201 articles, and 26 articles met criteria and were included in the analysis. The data types used to describe the tools were text/opinion (42.3%), qualitative (23.1%), system architecture (19.2%), quantitative and qualitative (11.5 %), and quantitative (3.8%). The tools' main functions were Resource Allocation (41.7%), Data Collection and Management (33%), Interagency Communications (15.4 %), Beneficiary Communications (11.5%), and Fundraising (7.7%). The platforms used to achieve these goals were Mobile Application (36%), Internet of Things (20%), Website (20%), and Mobile Survey (8%); 92% covered the disaster response phase. CONCLUSIONS: Digital tools for planning, situational awareness, client choice, and recovery are needed to support emergency food assistance, but there is a lack of these tools and research on their effectiveness across all disaster phases.

A Global Assessment of Eye Health and Quality of Life: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews.

IMPORTANCE: More than 1 billion people worldwide have vision impairment or blindness from potentially preventable or correctable causes. Quality of life, an important measure of physical, emotional, and social well-being, appears to be negatively associated with vision impairment, and increasingly, ophthalmic interventions are being assessed for their association with quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between vision impairment or eye disease and quality of life, and the outcome of ophthalmic interventions on quality of life globally and across the life span, through an umbrella review or systematic review of systematic reviews. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The electronic databases MEDLINE, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Proquest Dissertations, and Theses Global were searched from inception through June 29, 2020, using a comprehensive search strategy. Systematic reviews addressing vision impairment, eye disease, or ophthalmic interventions and quantitatively or qualitatively assessing health-related, vision-related, or disease-specific quality of life were included. Article screening, quality appraisal, and data extraction were performed by 4 reviewers working independently and in duplicate. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal and data extraction forms for umbrella reviews were used. FINDINGS: Nine systematic reviews evaluated the association between quality of life and vision impairment, age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, or mendelian eye conditions (including retinitis pigmentosa). Of these, 5 were reviews of quantitative observational studies, 3 were reviews of qualitative studies, and 1 was a review of qualitative and quantitative studies. All found an association between vision impairment and lower quality of life. Sixty systematic reviews addressed at least 1 ophthalmic intervention in association with quality of life. Overall, 33 unique interventions were investigated, of which 25 were found to improve quality of life compared with baseline measurements or a group receiving no intervention. These interventions included timely cataract surgery, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for age-related macular degeneration, and macular edema. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There is a consistent association between vision impairment, eye diseases, and reduced quality of life. These findings support pursuing ophthalmic interventions, such as timely cataract surgery and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, for common retinal diseases, where indicated, to improve quality of life for millions of people globally each year.

Assessment of Duplicate Publication of Chinese-Sponsored Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Duplicate publications of randomized clinical trials are prevalent in the health-related literature. To date, few studies have assessed the interaction between duplicate publication and the language of the original publication. Objective: To assess the existence of duplicate publication and the extent to which duplicate publication is associated with the language of the original publication. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study, eligible randomized clinical trials were retrieved from trial registries, and bibliographic databases were searched to determine their publication status. Eligible randomized clinical trials were for drug interventions from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2014. The search and analysis were conducted from March 1 to August 31, 2019. The trial registries were either primary registries recognized by the World Health Organization or the Drug Clinical Trial Registry Platform sponsored by the China Food and Drug Administration. Exposures: Individual randomized clinical trials with positive vs negative results. Main Outcomes and Measures: Journal articles were classified as main articles (determined by largest sample size and longest follow-up among all journal articles derived from that randomized clinical trial) and duplicates. The duplicates were classified into 4 types: (1) unreferenced subgroup analysis (article did not disclose itself as a subgroup analysis or reference its main article); (2) unreferenced republication (article did not disclose itself as a replicate of the main article or reference it); (3) unreferenced interim analysis (article did not disclose itself as an interim analysis or reference its main article); and (4) partial duplicate (article did not disclose its sharing a subset of participants with other articles or reference them). Results: Among 470 randomized clinical trials published by August 2019 as journal articles, 55 (11.7%) had 75 duplicates, of which 53 (70.7%) were cross-language duplicates. Of the 75 duplicates, 33 (44.0%) were unreferenced republications, 25 (33.3%) unreferenced subgroup analyses, 15 (20.0%) unreferenced interim analyses, and 2 (2.7%) partial duplicates. When the main article of a randomized clinical trial was published in Chinese, those with positive findings were 2.48 (95% CI, 1.08-5.71) times more likely to have subsequent duplicate publication than those with negative findings. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, most duplicates were cross-language duplicates and the most common type was unreferenced republication of the main article. Duplicate publication bias exists when the main articles of randomized clinical trials were published in Chinese, potentially misleading readers and compromising journals and evidence synthesis.

Assessment of Language and Indexing Biases Among Chinese-Sponsored Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Language and indexing biases may exist among Chinese-sponsored randomized clinical trials (CS-RCTs). Such biases may threaten the validity of systematic reviews. Objective: To evaluate the existence of language and indexing biases among CS-RCTs on drug interventions. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study, eligible CS-RCTs were retrieved from trial registries, and bibliographic databases were searched to determine their publication status. Eligible CS-RCTs were for drug interventions conducted from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2014. The search and analysis were conducted from March 1 to August 31, 2019. Primary trial registries were recognized by the World Health Organization and the Drug Clinical Trial Registry Platform sponsored by the China Food and Drug Administration. Exposures: Individual CS-RCTs with positive vs negative results (positive vs negative CS-RCTs). Main Outcomes and Measures: For assessing language bias, the main outcome was the language of the journal in which CS-RCTs were published (English vs Chinese). For indexing bias, the main outcome was the language of the bibliographic database where the CS-RCTs were indexed (English vs Chinese). Results: The search identified 891 eligible CS-RCTs. Four hundred seventy CS-RCTs were published by August 31, 2019, of which 368 (78.3%) were published in English. Among CS-RCTs registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR), positive CS-RCTs were 3.92 (95% CI, 2.20-7.00) times more likely to be published in English than negative CS-RCTs; among CS-RCTs in English-language registries, positive CS-RCTs were 3.22 (95% CI, 1.34-7.78) times more likely to be published in English than negative CS-RCTs. These findings suggest the existence of language bias. Among CS-RCTs registered in ChiCTR, positive CS-RCTs were 2.89 (95% CI, 1.55-5.40) times more likely to be indexed in English bibliographic databases than negative CS-RCTs; among CS-RCTs in English-language registries, positive CS-RCTs were 2.19 (95% CI, 0.82-5.82) times more likely to be indexed in English bibliographic databases than negative CS-RCTs. These findings support the existence of indexing bias. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests the existence of language and indexing biases among registered CS-RCTs on drug interventions. These biases may distort evidence synthesis toward more positive results of drug interventions.

A systematic review of radiotherapy capacity in low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVES: The cancer burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is substantial. The purpose of this study was to identify and describe country and region-specific patterns of radiotherapy (RT) facilities in LMIC. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken. A search strategy was developed to include articles on radiation capacity in LMIC from the following databases: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, Global Health, and the Latin American and Caribbean System on Health Sciences Information. Searches included all literature up to April 2013. RESULTS: A total of 49 articles were included in the review. Studies reviewed were divided into one of four regions: Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America. The African continent has the least amount of resources for RT. Furthermore, a wide disparity exists, as 60% of all machines on the continent are concentrated in Egypt and South Africa while 29 countries in Africa are still lacking any RT resource. A significant heterogeneity also exists across Southeast Asia despite a threefold increase in megavoltage teletherapy machines from 1976 to 1999, which corresponds with a rise in economic status. In LMIC of the Americas, only Uruguay met the International Atomic Energy Agency recommendations of 4 MV/million population, whereas Bolivia and Venezuela had the most radiation oncologists (>1 per 1000 new cancer cases). The main concern with the review of RT resources in Eastern Europe was the lack of data. CONCLUSION: There is a dearth of publications on RT therapy infrastructure in LMIC. However, based on limited published data, availability of RT resources reflects the countries' economic status. The challenges to delivering radiation in the discussed regions are multidimensional and include lack of physical resources, lack of human personnel, and lack of data. Furthermore, access to existing RT and affordability of care remains a large problem.