Is public transport a risk factor for acute respiratory infection?

BACKGROUND: The relationship between public transport use and acquisition of acute respiratory infection (ARI) is not well understood but potentially important during epidemics and pandemics. METHODS: A case-control study performed during the 2008/09 influenza season. Cases (n = 72) consulted a General Practitioner with ARI, and controls with another non-respiratory acute condition (n = 66). Data were obtained on bus or tram usage in the five days preceding illness onset (cases) or the five days before consultation (controls) alongside demographic details. Multiple logistic regression modelling was used to investigate the association between bus or tram use and ARI, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Recent bus or tram use within five days of symptom onset was associated with an almost six-fold increased risk of consulting for ARI (adjusted OR = 5.94 95% CI 1.33-26.5). The risk of ARI appeared to be modified according to the degree of habitual bus and tram use, but this was not statistically significant (1-3 times/week: adjusted OR = 0.54 (95% CI 0.15-1.95; >3 times/week: 0.37 (95% CI 0.13-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: We found a statistically significant association between ARI and bus or tram use in the five days before symptom onset. The risk appeared greatest among occasional bus or tram users, but this trend was not statistically significant. However, these data are plausible in relation to the greater likelihood of developing protective antibodies to common respiratory viruses if repeatedly exposed. The findings have differing implications for the control of seasonal acute respiratory infections and for pandemic influenza.

Predicting urinary incontinence in women in later life: A systematic review.

Urinary incontinence (UI) affects 10-40% of the population and treatment costs in the UK are estimated to be £233 million per annum. A systematic review of online medical databases between July 1974 and 2016 was conducted to identify studies that had investigated risk and prediction strategies of UI in later life. Eighteen prospective longitudinal studies fulfilled the search criteria. These were analysed systematically (as per the PRISMA checklist) and bias risk through study design was minimised where possible upon data analysis. One paper proposed a predictive assessment tool called the 'continence index'. It was derived following secondary analysis of a cohort study and its predictive threshold had suboptimal sensitivity (79%) and specificity (65%) rates. Seventeen studies identified multiple strong risk factors for UI but despite a large selection of papers on the topic, no robust risk assessment tool prospectively identified patients at risk of UI in later life. Thus more research in this field is required. Clinicians should be aware particularly of modifiable UI risk factors to help reduce the clinical burden of UI in the long term.

Variation in the reporting of outcomes among pregnant women with epilepsy: a systematic review.

Studies on pregnant women with epilepsy should evaluate both neurological and pregnancy outcomes. We undertook a systematic review of the literature of studies on pregnant women with epilepsy to collate the outcomes reported, and the quality of outcomes report in these studies. We searched major electronic databases (from 1999 until January 2015). Two independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data on study design, the risk of bias of the studies, journal impact factor and the quality of reported outcomes. We assessed the quality outcomes report using a six items standardised tool (score range 0-6). There were 70 different outcomes reported in 232 studies (maternal neurological (13/70, 19%), fetal and neonatal (28/70, 40%), and obstetric outcomes (29/70, 41%)). Most studies reported on major congenital fetal abnormalities (103/232, 44%), followed by live birth (60/232, 26%). Quality of the reported outcomes was poor (mean 1.54, SD 1.36). It was associated with journal impact factor (p=0.007), but not with study design (p=0.60), or risk of bias (p=0.17). The outcomes reported in studies on pregnant women with epilepsy varied widely, and the quality of the outcomes report was poor. There is a need to identify a set of core outcome to harmonise reporting in future clinical studies.