Oral Health Interventions in Natural Disasters: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: This work aimed to identify, appraise, and summarize existing knowledge about oral health interventions in the context of natural disasters and verify the main research gaps. METHODS: We searched in PubMed (National Library of Medicine, Maryland, USA), EMBASE (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Epistemonikos (Epistemonikos Foundation, Santiago, Chile) until 2021 for primary studies and systematic reviews, assessing any oral health intervention in the context of natural disasters. The interventions were classified according to Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) categories, and the type of natural disaster was defined according to the classification by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). RESULTS: We assessed a total of 19 studies (majorly in Japan, n = 8), all performed in the context of an earthquake or mixed natural disasters (earthquake and tsunami). Regarding interventions, 12 studies reported a promotional/ preventive intervention, with oral examination being the most frequent. 7 studies reported therapeutic interventions, mainly related to emergency management of fractures and injuries. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence accessed in our study was limited, highlighting the need for further research to focus on different oral health care interventions and outcomes in the context of different natural disasters, thus enhancing the formulation and implementation of recommendations and protocols worldwide.

Efficacy of systemic oncological treatments in patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancers at high risk of dying in the middle and short term: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal and gastric cancers are a significant public health problem worldwide, with most patients presenting with advanced-stage disease and, consequently, poor prognosis. Systemic oncological treatments (SOT) have been widely used over more conservative approaches, such as supportive care. Nevertheless, its effectiveness in this scenario is not sufficiently clear. This paper provides an overview of systematic reviews that assessed the effectiveness of SOT compared with the best supportive care (BSC) or placebo in patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancers in an end-of-life context. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and PROSPERO for eligible systematic reviews (SRs) published from 2008 onwards. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), functional status, and toxicity. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data independently. We evaluated the methodological quality of included SRs using the AMSTAR-2 tool and the overlap of primary studies (corrected covered area, CCA). Also, we performed a de novo meta-analysis with data reported for each primary study when it was possible. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 16 SRs (19 included trials) for inclusion within this overview. Most reviews had a critically low methodological quality, and there was a very high overlap of primary studies. It is uncertain whether SOT improves OS and PFS over more conservative approaches due to the very low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effectiveness of SOT for advanced esophageal or gastric cancers. High-quality SRs and further randomized clinical trials that include a thorough assessment of patient-centered outcomes are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7CHX6 .