Assessor burden, inter-rater agreement and user experience of the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing risk of bias in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors: An analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: As part of the development of the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Labour Organization (ILO) Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury, WHO and ILO carried out several systematic reviews to determine the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors. Risk of bias assessment for individual studies is a critical step of a systematic review. No tool existed for assessing the risk of bias in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors, so WHO and ILO developed and pilot tested the RoB-SPEO tool for this purpose. Here, we investigate the assessor burden, inter-rater agreement, and user experience of this new instrument, based on the abovementioned WHO/ILO systematic reviews. METHODS: Twenty-seven individual experts applied RoB-SPEO to assess risk of bias. Four systematic reviews provided a total of 283 individual assessments, carried out for 137 studies. For each study, two or more assessors independently assessed risk of bias across the eight RoB-SPEO domains selecting one of RoB-SPEO's six ratings (i.e., "low", "probably low", "probably high", "high", "unclear" or "cannot be determined"). Assessors were asked to report time taken (i.e. indicator of assessor burden) to complete each assessment and describe their user experience. To gauge assessor burden, we calculated the median and inter-quartile range of times taken per individual risk of bias assessment. To assess inter-rater reliability, we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (Pi) for each RoB-SPEO domain, between Pi = 0.00, indicating no agreement and Pi = 1.00, indicating perfect agreement. As subgroup analyses, Pi was also disaggregated by systematic review, assessor experience with RoB-SPEO (≤10 assessments versus > 10 assessments), and assessment time (tertiles: ≤25 min versus 26-66 min versus ≥ 67 min). To describe user experience, we synthesised the assessors' comments and recommendations. RESULTS: Assessors reported a median of 40 min to complete one assessment (interquartile range 21-120 min). For all domains, raw inter-rater agreement ranged from 0.54 to 0.82. Agreement varied by systematic review and assessor experience with RoB-SPEO between domains, and increased with increasing assessment time. A small number of users recommended further development of instructions for selected RoB-SPEO domains, especially bias in selection of participants into the study (domain 1) and bias due to differences in numerator and denominator (domain 7). DISCUSSION: Overall, our results indicated good agreement across the eight domains of the RoB-SPEO tool. The median assessment time was comparable to that of other risk of bias tools, indicating comparable assessor burden. However, there was considerable variation in time taken to complete assessments. Additional time spent on assessments may improve inter-rater agreement. Further development of the RoB-SPEO tool could focus on refining instructions for selected RoB-SPEO domains and additional testing to assess agreement for different topic areas and with a wider range of assessors from different research backgrounds.

The prevalence of occupational exposure to noise: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of individual experts. Evidence from mechanistic and human data suggests that occupational exposure to noise may cause cardiovascular disease. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from cardiovascular disease that are attributable to exposure to this risk factor, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise. DATA SOURCES: We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines, and organizational websites; hand-searched reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economies in any WHO Member and/or ILO member State, but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included all study types with an estimate of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise, categorized into two levels: no (low) occupational exposure to noise (<85dBA) and any (high) occupational exposure to noise (≥85dBA). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the RoB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. RESULTS: Sixty-five studies (56 cross-sectional studies and nine cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising 157,370 participants (15,369 females) across 28 countries and all six WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, Europe, South-East Asia, and Western Pacific). For the main analyses, we prioritized the four included studies that surveyed national probability samples of general populations of workers over the 58 studies of workers in industrial sectors and/or occupations with relatively high occupational exposure to noise. The exposure was generally assessed with dosimetry, sound level meter, or official or company records; in the population-based studies, it was assessed with validated questions. Estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise are presented for all 65 included studies, by country, sex, 5-year age group, industrial sector, and occupation where feasible. The pooled prevalence of any (high) occupational exposure to noise (≥85dBA) among the general population of workers was 0.17 (95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.19, 4 studies, 108,256 participants, 38 countries, two WHO regions, I2 98%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses showed that pooled prevalence differed substantially by WHO region, sex, industrial sector, and occupation. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found that occupational exposure to noise is prevalent among general populations of workers. The current body of evidence is, however, of low quality, due to serious concerns for risk of bias and indirectness. Producing estimates of occupational exposure to noise nevertheless appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review are suitable as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates (if feasible). Protocol identifier: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.040 PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018092272.

The effect of occupational exposure to noise on ischaemic heart disease, stroke and hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-Related Burden of Disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large number of individual experts. Evidence from mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to noise may cause cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from CVD that are attributable to occupational exposure to noise, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of any (high) occupational exposure to noise (≥85 dBA), compared with no (low) occupational exposure to noise (<85 dBA), on the prevalence, incidence and mortality of ischaemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, and hypertension. DATA SOURCES: A protocol was developed and published, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies up to 1 April 2019, including International Trials Register, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, Scopus, Web of Science, and CISDOC. The MEDLINE and Pubmed searches were updated on 31 January 2020. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of any occupational exposure to noise on CVD prevalence, incidence or mortality, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (<85 dBA). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. We prioritized evidence from cohort studies and combined relative risk estimates using random-effect meta-analysis. To assess the robustness of findings, we conducted sensitivity analyses (leave-one-out meta-analysis and used as alternative fixed effects and inverse-variance heterogeneity estimators). At least two review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence, using Navigation Guide tools and approaches adapted to this project. RESULTS: Seventeen studies (11 cohort studies, six case-control studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 534,688 participants (39,947 or 7.47% females) in 11 countries in three WHO regions (the Americas, Europe, and the Western Pacific). The exposure was generally assessed with dosimetry, sound level meter and/or official or company records. The outcome was most commonly assessed using health records. We are very uncertain (low quality of evidence) about the effect of occupational exposure to noise (≥85 dBA), compared with no occupational exposure to noise (<85 dBA), on: having IHD (0 studies); acquiring IHD (relative risk (RR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.15 to 1.43, two studies, 11,758 participants, I2 0%); dying from IHD (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93-1.14, four studies, 198,926 participants, I2 26%); having stroke (0 studies); acquiring stroke (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.82-1.65, two studies, 170,000 participants, I2 0%); dying from stroke (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93-1.12, three studies, 195,539 participants, I2 0%); having hypertension (0 studies); acquiring hypertension (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90-1.28, three studies, four estimates, 147,820 participants, I2 52%); and dying from hypertension (0 studies). Data for subgroup analyses were missing. Sensitivity analyses supported the main analyses. CONCLUSIONS: For acquiring IHD, we judged the existing body of evidence from human data to provide "limited evidence of harmfulness"; a positive relationship is observed between exposure and outcome where chance, bias, and confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence. For all other included outcomes, the bodies of evidence were judged as "inadequate evidence of harmfulness". Producing estimates for the burden of CVD attributable to occupational exposure to noise appears to not be evidence-based at this time. PROTOCOL IDENTIFIER: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.040. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018092272.

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to occupational noise and of the effect of exposure to occupational noise on cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from cardiovascular disease attributable to exposure to occupational noise, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. OBJECTIVES: We aim to systematically review studies on exposure to occupational noise (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational noise on cardiovascular diseases (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework, conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way. DATA SOURCES: Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and CISDOC. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State, but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. The eligible risk factor will be occupational noise. Eligible outcomes will be hypertensive heart disease, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, cardiomyopathy, myocarditis, endocarditis and other circulatory diseases. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of exposure to occupational noise (i.e., low: <85 dB(A) and high: ≥85 dB(A)) stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the relative effect of high exposure to occupational noise on the prevalence of, incidence of or mortality due to cardiovascular disease, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e., low exposure). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018092272.

Sensitivity of cytopathological examination in the diagnosis of feline sporotrichosis.

Sporotrichosis is caused by Sporothrix schenckii. The cat is the animal species most affected by this mycosis and plays an important role in the zoonotic transmission of this disease. The definitive diagnosis is made by isolation of the fungus in culture; however, cytopathological examination is frequently used in cats. Medical records from cats treated at Instituto de Pesquisa Clínica Evandro Chagas/Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, between 2004 and 2006 were reviewed. Criteria for inclusion were a diagnosis by isolation of S schenckii in culture and cytopathological examination of the same lesion as that used for collection of the culture material. Eight hundred and six cats were included in the study. Yeast-like structures suggestive of S schenckii were observed in 636 cases. The sensitivity of the method was 78.9%. Its practicality, low cost and sensitivity validate cytopathology as a safe technique for the presumptive diagnosis of sporotrichosis in cats.