Late mortality among 5-year survivors of childhood cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Childhood cancer survivors are at increased risk of late mortality (death ≥5 years after diagnosis) from cancer recurrence and treatment-related late effects. The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide comprehensive estimates of late mortality risk among survivors internationally and to investigate differences in risk across world regions. METHODS: Health sciences databases were searched for cohort studies comprised of 5-year childhood cancer survivors in which the risk of mortality was evaluated across multiple cancer types. Eligible studies assessed all-cause mortality risk in survivors relative to the general population using the standardized mortality ratio (SMR). The absolute excess risk (AER) was assessed as a secondary measure to examine excess deaths. Cause-specific mortality risk was also assessed, if reported. SMRs from nonoverlapping cohorts were combined in subgroup meta-analysis, and the effect of world region was tested in univariate meta-regression. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included, and cohort sizes ranged from 314 to 77,423 survivors. Throughout survivorship, SMRs for all-cause mortality generally declined, whereas AERs increased after 15-20 years from diagnosis in several cohorts. All-cause SMRs were significantly lower overall in North American studies than in European studies (relative SMR, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.80). SMRs for subsequent malignant neoplasms and for cardiovascular, respiratory, and external causes did not vary significantly between world regions. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings suggest that late mortality risk may differ significantly between world regions, but these conclusions are based on a limited number of studies with considerable heterogeneity. Reasons for regional differences remain unclear but may be better elucidated through future analyses of individual-level data.

The carbon footprint of critical care: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The provision of healthcare is a substantial global contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Several medical specialties and national health systems have begun evaluating their carbon emission contributions. The aim of this review is to summarise and describe the carbon footprint resulting from the provision of adult, paediatric and neonatal critical care. METHODS: A systematic search of Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science was performed in January 2023. Studies reporting any assessment of the carbon footprint of critical care were included. No language restrictions were applied. GHG emissions from life cycle assessments (LCA) were reported, in addition to waste, electricity and water use. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed. RESULTS: In total, 13 studies assessing and describing the environmental impact of 36 adult or paediatric intensive care units (ICUs) were included. Two studies described full LCAs, seven reported waste only, two provided audits of unused medical supplies, one reported electricity use, and one study described a Material Flow Analysis. The estimated carbon emissions from critical care range between 88 kg CO2e/patient/day and 178 kg CO2e/patient/day. The two predominant sources of carbon emissions in critical care originate from electricity and gas use, as well as consumables. Waste production ranged from 1.1 to 13.7 kg/patient/day in the 6 studies where mean waste could be calculated. CONCLUSION: There is a significant carbon footprint that results from intensive care provision. Consumables and waste constitute important, measurable, and modifiable components of anthropogenic emissions. There remains uncertainty due to a lack of literature, several unstudied areas of carbon emissions from critical care units, and within measured areas, measurement and reporting of carbon emissions are inconsistent.

How to conduct an annual literature update for top articles relevant to clinical practice in geriatrics: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical educators in geriatrics are often tasked with presenting a literature update at annual conferences and scientific meetings, which is a highly regarded continuing medical education (CME) activity. Preparation of an annual literature update cannot rely on bibliometric analysis due to time lag and poor correlation between bibliometrics and expert opinion on clinical relevance. The methodology of how top research articles of the year are selected and presented is not often reported. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review for published reports of a curated selection of recent articles critically appraised for high impact to clinical practice in general geriatrics, published from 2010 to 2022. RESULTS: Six annual literature updates were included for study. Three updates detailed their article sources, ranging from a survey of clinicians, consulting seven individual journals, searching up to four bibliographic databases, scanning social media outlets, and reviewing previous literature updates. One update reported a detailed method of article selection and consensus development. Critical appraisal of articles followed a structured reporting of clinical context, methods, results, and a statement of clinical implication or bottom line. Three of the six updates' results were disseminated in an annual conference update and did not evaluate learning outcomes of the audience. We mapped the results on a four-step framework of article search, selection, critical appraisal, and dissemination of knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Educators in geriatrics consult numerous article sources spanning multiple journals, databases, social media, and peer suggestions to create an annual literature update. The methodology of article search and selection is inconsistently described. In this exciting area of CME, we encourage educators to develop a framework for conducting annual literature updates in geriatrics and expand its scholarship.