Are medical procedures that induce coughing or involve respiratory suctioning associated with increased generation of aerosols and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection? A rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from aerosols generated by medical procedures is a cause for concern. AIM: To evaluate the evidence for aerosol production and transmission of respiratory infection associated with procedures that involve airway suctioning or induce coughing/sneezing. METHODS: The review was informed by PRISMA guidelines. Searches were conducted in PubMed for studies published between January 1st, 2003 and October 6th, 2020. Included studies examined whether nasogastric tube insertion, lung function tests, nasendoscopy, dysphagia assessment, or suctioning for airway clearance result in aerosol generation or transmission of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, MERS, or influenza. Risk of bias assessment focused on robustness of measurement, control for confounding, and applicability to clinical practice. FINDINGS: Eighteen primary studies and two systematic reviews were included. Three epidemiological studies found no association between nasogastric tube insertion and acquisition of respiratory infections. One simulation study found low/very low production of aerosols associated with pulmonary lung function tests. Seven simulation studies of endoscopic sinus surgery suggested significant increases in aerosols but findings were inconsistent; two clinical studies found airborne particles associated with the use of microdebriders/drills. Some simulation studies did not use robust measures to detect particles and are difficult to equate to clinical conditions. CONCLUSION: There was an absence of evidence to suggest that the procedures included in the review were associated with an increased risk of transmission of respiratory infection. In order to better target precautions to mitigate risk, more research is required to determine the characteristics of medical procedures and patients that increase the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Interpretive analysis of 85 systematic reviews suggests that narrative syntheses and meta-analyses are incommensurate in argumentation.

Using Toulmin's argumentation theory, we analysed the texts of systematic reviews in the area of workplace health promotion to explore differences in the modes of reasoning embedded in reports of narrative synthesis as compared with reports of meta-analysis. We used framework synthesis, grounded theory and cross-case analysis methods to analyse 85 systematic reviews addressing intervention effectiveness in workplace health promotion. Two core categories, or 'modes of reasoning', emerged to frame the contrast between narrative synthesis and meta-analysis: practical-configurational reasoning in narrative synthesis ('what is going on here? What picture emerges?') and inferential-predictive reasoning in meta-analysis ('does it work, and how well? Will it work again?'). Modes of reasoning examined quality and consistency of the included evidence differently. Meta-analyses clearly distinguished between warrant and claim, whereas narrative syntheses often presented joint warrant-claims. Narrative syntheses and meta-analyses represent different modes of reasoning. Systematic reviewers are likely to be addressing research questions in different ways with each method. It is important to consider narrative synthesis in its own right as a method and to develop specific quality criteria and understandings of how it is carried out, not merely as a complement to, or second-best option for, meta-analysis. © 2016 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Alcohol advertising and public health: systems perspectives versus narrow perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol consumption is influenced by a complex causal system of interconnected psychological, behavioural, social, economic, legal and environmental factors. These factors are shaped by governments (eg, licensing laws and taxation), by consumers (eg, patterns of alcohol consumption drive demand) and by alcohol industry practices, such as advertising. The marketing and advertising of alcoholic products contributes to an 'alcogenic environment' and is a modifiable influence on alcohol consumption and harm. The public health perspective is that there is sufficient evidence that alcohol advertising influences consumption. The alcohol industry disputes this, asserting that advertising only aims to help consumers choose between brands. METHODS: We review the evidence from recent systematic reviews, including their theoretical and methodological assumptions, to help understand what conclusions can be drawn about the relationships between alcohol advertising, advertising restrictions and alcohol consumption. CONCLUSIONS: A wide evidence base needs to be drawn on to provide a system-level overview of the relationship between alcohol advertising, advertising restrictions and consumption. Advertising aims to influence not just consumption, but also to influence awareness, attitudes and social norms; this is because advertising is a system-level intervention with multiple objectives. Given this, assessments of the effects of advertising restrictions which focus only on sales or consumption are insufficient and may be misleading. For this reason, previous systematic reviews, such as the 2014 Cochrane review on advertising restrictions (Siegfried et al) contribute important, but incomplete representations of 'the evidence' needed to inform the public health case for policy decisions on alcohol advertising. We conclude that an unintended consequence of narrow, linear framings of complex system-level issues is that they can produce misleading answers. Systems problems require systems perspectives.