The upcoming Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games could face environmental challenges related to heat, air quality and water quality. These challenges will pose potential threats to athletes and impact thousands of stakeholders and millions of spectators. Recognising the multifaceted nature of these challenges, a range of strategies will be essential for mitigating adverse effects on participants, stakeholders and spectators alike. From personalised interventions for athletes and attendees to comprehensive measures implemented by organisers, a holistic approach is crucial to address these challenges and the possible interplay of heat, air and water quality factors during the event. This evidence-based review highlights various environmental challenges anticipated at Paris 2024, offering strategies applicable to athletes, stakeholders and spectators. Additionally, it provides recommendations for Local Organising Committees and the International Olympic Committee that may be applicable to future Games. In summary, the review offers solutions for consideration by the stakeholders responsible for and affected by the anticipated environmental challenges at Paris 2024.

Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (REDs) has various different risk factors, numerous signs and symptoms and is heavily influenced by one\'s environment. Accordingly, there is no singular validated diagnostic test. This 2023 International Olympic Committee\'s REDs Clinical Assessment Tool-V.2 (IOC REDs CAT2) implements a three-step process of: (1) initial screening; (2) severity/risk stratification based on any identified REDs signs/symptoms (primary and secondary indicators) and (3) a physician-led final diagnosis and treatment plan developed with the athlete, coach and their entire health and performance team. The CAT2 also introduces a more clinically nuanced four-level traffic-light (green, yellow, orange and red) severity/risk stratification with associated sport participation guidelines. Various REDs primary and secondary indicators have been identified and \'weighted\' in terms of scientific support, clinical severity/risk and methodological validity and usability, allowing for objective scoring of athletes based on the presence or absence of each indicator. Early draft versions of the CAT2 were developed with associated athlete-testing, feedback and refinement, followed by REDs expert validation via voting statements (ie, online questionnaire to assess agreement on each indicator). Physician and practitioner validity and usability assessments were also implemented. The aim of the IOC REDs CAT2 is to assist qualified clinical professionals in the early and accurate diagnosis of REDs, with an appropriate clinical severity and risk assessment, in order to protect athlete health and prevent prolonged and irreversible outcomes of REDs.

Decades of debate surround the use of intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) during cholecystectomy. To the present day, the role of IOC is controversial as regards decreasing the rate of bile duct injury (BDI). We aimed to review and analyse the available literature on the benefits of IOC during cholecystectomy.
A systematic literature search was performed until 19 October 2020 in five databases using the following search keys: cholangiogra* and cholecystectomy. The primary outcomes were BDI and retained stone rate. To investigate the differences between the groups (routine IOC vs selective IOC and IOC vs no IOC), we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous outcomes and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Of the 19,863 articles, 38 were selected and 32 were included in the quantitative synthesis. Routine IOC showed no superiority compared to selective IOC in decreasing BDI (RR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.66; 1.24). Comparing IOC and no IOC, no statistically significant differences were found in the case of BDI, retained stone rate, readmission rate, and length of hospital stay. We found an increased risk of conversion rate to open surgery in the no IOC group (RR = 0.64, CI 0.51; 0.78). The operation time was significantly longer in the IOC group compared to the no IOC group (WMD = 11.25 min, 95% CI 6.57; 15.93).
Our findings suggest that IOC may not be indicated in every case, however, the evidence is very uncertain. Further good quality research is required to address this question.