High concentrations of waste anesthetic gases induce genetic damage and inflammation in physicians exposed for three years: A cross-sectional study.

This cross-sectional study analyzed the impact of occupational waste anesthetic gases on genetic material, oxidative stress, and inflammation status in young physicians exposed to inhalational anesthetics at the end of their medical residency. Concentrations of waste anesthetic gases were measured in the operating rooms to assess anesthetic pollution. The exposed group comprised individuals occupationally exposed to inhalational anesthetics, while the control group comprised individuals without anesthetic exposure. We quantified DNA damage; genetic instability (micronucleus-MN); protein, lipid, and DNA oxidation; antioxidant activities; and proinflammatory cytokine levels. Trace concentrations of anesthetics (isoflurane: 5.3 ± 2.5 ppm, sevoflurane: 9.7 ± 5.9 ppm, and nitrous oxide: 180 ± 150 ppm) were above international recommended thresholds. Basal DNA damage and IL-17A were significantly higher in the exposed group [27 ± 20 a.u. and 20.7(19.1;31.8) pg/mL, respectively] compared to the control group [17 ± 11 a.u. and 19.0(18.9;19.5) pg/mL, respectively], and MN frequency was slightly increased in the exposed physicians (2.3-fold). No significant difference was observed regarding oxidative stress biomarkers. The findings highlight the genetic and inflammatory risks in young physicians exposed to inhalational agents in operating rooms lacking adequate scavenging systems. This potential health hazard can accompany these subjects throughout their professional lives and reinforces the need to reduce ambient air pollution and consequently, occupational exposure.

Choosing the right journal for your systematic review.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The importance of systematic reviews (SRs) as an aid to decision making in health care has led to an increasing interest in the development of this type of study. When selecting a target journal for publication, authors generally seek out higher impact factor journals. This study aimed to determine the percentage of scientific medical journals that publish SRs according to their impact factors (>2.63) and to determine whether those journals require tools that aim to improve SR reporting and meta-analyses. METHODS: In our cross-sectional study showing how to choose the right journal for a SR, we selected and analysed scientific journals available in a digital library with a minimum Institute for Scientific Information impact factor of 2.63. RESULTS: We analysed 622 scientific journals, 435 (69.94%) of which publish SRs. Of those 435 journals, 135 (21.60%) provide instructions for authors that mention SRs. Three hundred journals (48.34%) do not discuss criteria for article acceptance in the instructions for authors section, but do publish SRs. Only 118 (27.00%) scientific journals require items to be reported in accordance with the specific SR reporting forms. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the journals do not mention the acceptance of SRs in the instructions for authors section. Only a few journals require that SRs meet specific reporting guidelines, making interpretation of their findings across studies challenging. There is no correlation between the impact factor of the journal and its acceptance of SRs for publication.