Children\'s exposure to intimate partner violence (CEIPV) between parents and other caregivers accounts for nearly half of all cases investigated and substantiated by child welfare authorities in Canada. The emotional, physical, and behavioural impairments associated with CEIPV are similar to effects of other forms of child maltreatment. The identification of children and youth who have been exposed to intimate partner violence (IPV) can be challenging due to the non-specific behaviours sometimes associated with such exposure, and the stigma and secrecy that often characterize IPV. Also, responding safely to children and youth with suspected CEIPV can be complicated by the need to consider the safety and well-being of a non-offending caregiver. This position statement presents an evidence-informed approach developed by the Violence, Evidence, Guidance, Action (VEGA) Project for the safe recognition and response to children and youth who are suspected of being exposed to IPV.

UNASSIGNED: Recently, observational studies have reported that gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is commonly associated with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but the causal relationship is unclear.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a two-sample Mendelian randomization study using summary data from genome-wide association studies (GWASs) to explore a causal relationship between GERD (N cases = 129,080) and IBS (N cases = 4,605) of European ancestry. Furthermore, the inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method and a series of sensitivity analyses were used to assess the accuracy and confidence of our results.
UNASSIGNED: We found a significant association of GERD with IBS (NSNP = 74; OR: 1.375; 95% CI: 1.164-1.624; p < 0.001). Reverse MR analysis showed no evidence of a causal association for IBS with GERD (NSNP = 6; OR: 0.996; 95% CI: 0.960-1.034; p = 0.845).
UNASSIGNED: This study provides evidence that the presence of GERD increases the risk of developing IBS, and it is observed from the reverse MR results that IBS did not increase the risk of GERD.

The discovery of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the environment and humans worldwide has ignited scientific research, government inquiry, and public concern over numerous adverse health effects associated with PFAS exposure. In this review, we discuss the use of PFAS immunotoxicity data in regulatory and clinical decision-making contexts and question whether recent efforts adequately account for PFAS immunotoxicity in public health decision-making.
Government and academic reviews confirm the strongest human evidence for PFAS immunotoxicity is reduced antibody production in response to vaccinations, particularly for tetanus and diphtheria. However, recent events, such as the economic analysis supporting the proposed national primary drinking water regulations and clinical monitoring recommendations, indicate a failure to adequately incorporate these data into regulatory and clinical decisions. To be more protective of public health, we recommend using all relevant immunotoxicity data to inform current and future PFAS-related chemical risk assessment and regulation. Biological measures of immune system effects, such as reduced antibody levels in response to vaccination, should be used as valid and informative markers of health outcomes and risks associated with PFAS exposure. Routine toxicity testing should be expanded to include immunotoxicity evaluations in adult and developing organisms. In addition, clinical recommendations for PFAS-exposed individuals and communities should be revisited and strengthened to provide guidance on incorporating immune system monitoring and other actions that can be taken to protect against adverse health outcomes.

Background: After a traumatic incident in the workplace organisations want to provide support for their employees to prevent PTSD. However, what is safe and effective to offer has not yet been established, despite many organisations offering some form of intervention after a traumatic event.Objective: To systematically review the evidence for post-incident psychosocial interventions offered within one month of a workplace trauma, and to compare the content, effectiveness and acceptability of these interventions. Given the lack of a yet clearly established evidence-base in this field, we sought to examine both published empirical research as well as guidelines published by expert groups working with staff in high-risk roles.Methods: We conducted systematic searches for empirical research across bibliographic databases and searched online for clinical practice guidelines to April 2023. We were also referred to potentially relevant literature by experts in workplace trauma. Both empirical research and clinical guidelines were appraised for their quality.Results: A total of 80 research studies and 11 clinical practice guidelines were included in the review. Interventions included Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD), Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM), unspecified Debriefing, Trauma Risk Management (TRiM), Psychological First Aid (PFA), EMDR, CBT and group counselling. Most research and guidance were of poor quality. The findings of this review do not demonstrate any harm caused by CISD, CISM, PFA, TRiM, EMDR, group counselling or CBT interventions when delivered in a workplace setting. However, they do not conclusively demonstrate benefits of these interventions nor do they establish superiority of any specific intervention. Generic debriefing was associated with some negative outcomes. Current clinical guidelines were inconsistent with the current research evidence base. Nevertheless, interventions were generally valued by workers.Conclusions: Better quality research and guidance is urgently needed, including more detailed exploration of the specific aspects of delivery of post-incident interventions.
Organisations often seek to provide some form of psychosocial intervention after a traumatic event in the workplace.Previous reviews have contraindicated particular forms of ‘debriefing’, however, the evidence for post-incident psychosocial interventions in the workplace has not previously been systematically reviewed.Research evidence was generally of poor quality with limited evidence of effectiveness and clinical guidelines were inconsistent with the evidence. Nevertheless, research did not demonstrate harm from most established interventions and support was valued by workers.

暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: Clinical practice guidelines were continually changing during the COVID-19 pandemic to reflect the best available evidence for a novel virus. In Kazakhstan, the national clinical guidelines for COVID-19 patient care were regularly modified and it was not known if and to what extent these guidelines were being followed in practice.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a sub-analysis of data collected from an observational study among people hospitalized with COVID-19 in a large infectious disease hospital in Almaty in four cross-sections of increased COVID-19 incidence: T1 (1 June-30 August 2020); T2 (1 October-31 December 2020); T3 (1 April-31 May 2021); and T4 (1 July-26 October 2021). Modifications to the national COVID-19 treatment guidelines were identified and clinical data were abstracted from electronic medical records. We assessed frequency of antibiotic, glucocorticoid, anticoagulant, and antiviral administered in each period and determined if these aligned with national clinical guidelines. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare practices across periods.
UNASSIGNED: Six modifications were made to national COVID-19 treatment guidelines during this study. Of 1,146 people hospitalized with COVID-19, 14% were in T1, 14% in T2, 22% in T3, and 50% in T4. Anticoagulant treatment was administered to 87% (range: 56%-95%), antibiotic treatment to 60% (range: 58%-64%), glucocorticoid to 55% (range: 43%-64%) and antiviral therapy 15% (range: 7%-22%). Majority of treatments were not aligned with national guidelines, including 98% of anticoagulant use, 95% of antibiotic use, 56% of glucocorticoid use, and 56% of antiviral use. There were no significant changes in practice following changes in guidelines for antibiotic use (64% in T1 to 58% in T2, p = 0.30). There was significant increase in use of anticoagulant (84% in T2 vs. 95% in T3, p < 0.01), glucocorticoid (43% in T2 vs. 64% in T3, p < 0.01), and antiviral treatment (7% in T3 vs. 15% in T4, p < 0.01) after guidelines updates.
UNASSIGNED: The majority of treatments administered to people hospitalized with COVID-19 in four periods of high incidence in Almaty were not aligned with updated clinical guidelines. Antibiotic misuse was markedly high throughout. Increased awareness and training on clinical practice guidelines as updates are released may help improve adoption of evidence-based practices.

This 2023 statement updates clinical guidance for homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HoFH), explains the genetic complexity, and provides pragmatic recommendations to address inequities in HoFH care worldwide. Key strengths include updated criteria for the clinical diagnosis of HoFH and the recommendation to prioritize phenotypic features over genotype. Thus, a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >10 mmol/L (>400 mg/dL) is suggestive of HoFH and warrants further evaluation. The statement also provides state-of-the art discussion and guidance to clinicians for interpreting the results of genetic testing and for family planning and pregnancy. Therapeutic decisions are based on the LDL-C level. Combination LDL-C-lowering therapy-both pharmacologic intervention and lipoprotein apheresis (LA)-is foundational. Addition of novel, efficacious therapies (i.e. inhibitors of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9, followed by evinacumab and/or lomitapide) offers potential to attain LDL-C goal or reduce the need for LA. To improve HoFH care around the world, the statement recommends the creation of national screening programmes, education to improve awareness, and management guidelines that account for the local realities of care, including access to specialist centres, treatments, and cost. This updated statement provides guidance that is crucial to early diagnosis, better care, and improved cardiovascular health for patients with HoFH worldwide.

The prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is rising worldwide, paralleling the epidemic of obesity. The liver is a key organ for the metabolism of proteins, fats and carbohydrates. Various types of fats and carbohydrates in isocaloric diets differently influence fat accumulation in the liver parenchyma. Therefore, nutrition can manage hepatic and cardiometabolic complications of NAFLD. Even moderately reduced caloric intake, which leads to a weight loss of 5%-10% of initial body weight, is effective in improving liver steatosis and surrogate markers of liver disease status. Among dietary patterns, the Mediterranean diet mostly prevents the onset of NAFLD. Furthermore, this diet is also the most recommended for the treatment of NAFLD patients. However, clinical trials based on the dietary interventions in NAFLD patients are sparse. Since there are only a few studies examining dietary interventions in clinically advanced stages of NAFLD, such as active and fibrotic steatohepatitis, the optimal diet for patients in these stages of the disease must still be determined. In this narrative review, we aimed to critically summarize the associations between different dietary patterns, obesity and prevention/risk for NAFLD, to describe specific dietary interventions\' impacts on liver steatosis in adults with NAFLD and to provide an updated overview of dietary recommendations that clinicians potentially need to apply in their daily practice.

Recently Doi et al. argued that risk ratios should be replaced with odds ratios in clinical research. We disagreed, and empirically documented the lack of portability of odds ratios, while Doi et al. defended their position. In this response we highlight important errors in their position.
We counter Doi et al.\'s arguments by further examining the correlations of odds ratios, and risk ratios, with baseline risks in 20,198 meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Doi et al.\'s claim that odds ratios are portable is invalid because 1) their reasoning is circular: they assume a model under which the odds ratio is constant and show that under such a model the odds ratio is portable; 2) the method they advocate to convert odds ratios to risk ratios is biased; 3) their empirical example is readily-refuted by counter-examples of meta-analyses in which the risk ratio is portable but the odds ratio isn\'t; and 4) they fail to consider the causal determinants of meta-analytic inclusion criteria: Doi et al. mistakenly claim that variation in odds ratios with different baseline risks in meta-analyses is due to collider bias. Empirical comparison between the correlations of odds ratios, and risk ratios, with baseline risks show that the portability of odds ratios and risk ratios varies across settings.
The suggestion to replace risk ratios with odds ratios is based on circular reasoning and a confusion of mathematical and empirical results. It is especially misleading for meta-analyses and clinical guidance. Neither the odds ratio nor the risk ratio is universally portable. To address this lack of portability, we reinforce our suggestion to report variation in effect measures conditioning on modifying factors such as baseline risk; understanding such variation is essential to patient-centered practice.

The scientific landscape of treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D) has changed rapidly in the last decade with newer treatments becoming available. However, a large proportion of people with T2D are not able to achieve glycaemic goals because of clinical inertia. The majority of T2D management is in primary care, where clinicians (medical, nursing and pharmacist staff) play an important role in addressing patient needs and achieving treatment goals. However, management of T2D is challenging because of the heterogeneity of T2D and complexity of comorbidity, time constraints, guidance overload and the evolving treatments. Additionally, the current coronavirus disease pandemic poses additional challenges to the management of chronic diseases such as T2D, including routine access to patients for monitoring and communication. Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are a class of agents that have evolved rapidly in recent years. These agents act in a glucose-dependent manner to promote insulin secretion and inhibit glucagon secretion, as well as enhancing satiety and reducing hunger. As a result, they are effective treatment options for people with T2D, achieving glycated haemoglobin reductions, weight loss and potential cardiovascular benefit, as monotherapy or as add-on to other glucose-lowering therapies. However, given the complexity of managing T2D, it is important to equip primary care clinicians with clear information regarding efficacy, safety and appropriate positioning of GLP-1 RA therapies in clinical practice. This review provides a summary of clinical and real-world evidence along with practical guidance, with the aim of aiding primary care clinicians in the initiation and monitoring of GLP-1 RAs to help ensure that desired outcomes are realised. Furthermore, a benefit/risk tool has been developed on the basis of current available evidence and guidelines to support primary care clinicians in selecting individuals who are most likely to benefit from GLP-1 RA therapies, in addition to indicating clinical situations where caution is needed.