Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Mycoplasma genitalium incidence, persistence, concordance between partners and progression: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Mycoplasma genitalium is increasingly seen as an emerging sexually transmitted pathogen, and has been likened to Chlamydia trachomatis, but its natural history is poorly understood. The objectives of this systematic review were to determine M. genitalium incidence, persistence, concordance between sexual partners and the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). METHODS We searched Medline, EMBASE, LILACS, IndMed and African Index Medicus from 1 January 1981 until 17 March 2018. Two independent researchers screened studies for inclusion and extracted data. We examined results in forest plots, assessed heterogeneity and conducted meta-analysis where appropriate. Risk of bias was assessed for all studies. RESULTS We screened 4634 records and included 18 studies; six (4201 women) reported on incidence, five (636 women) on persistence, 10 (1346 women and men) on concordance and three (5139 women) on PID. Incidence in women in two very highly developed countries was 1.07 per 100 person-years (95% CI 0.61 to 1.53, I2 0%). Median persistence of M. genitalium was estimated from one to three months in four studies but 15 months in one study. In 10 studies measuring M. genitalium infection status in couples, 39%-50% of male or female sexual partners of infected participants also had M. genitalium detected. In prospective studies, PID incidence was higher in women with M. genitalium than those without (risk ratio 1.73, 95% CI 0.92 to 3.28, I2 0%, two studies). DISCUSSION Incidence of M. genitalium in very highly developed countries is similar to that for C. trachomatis, but concordance might be lower. Taken together with other evidence about age distribution and antimicrobial resistance in the two infections, M. genitalium is not the new chlamydia. Synthesised data about prevalence, incidence and persistence of M. genitalium infection are inconsistent. These findings can be used for mathematical modelling to investigate the dynamics of M. genitalium. REGISTRATION NUMBERS CRD42015020420, CRD42015020405

Prevalence of Mycoplasma genitalium in different population groups: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND is a common cause of non-gonococcal non-chlamydial urethritis and cervicitis. Testing of asymptomatic populations has been proposed, but prevalence in asymptomatic populations is not well established. We aimed to estimate the prevalence ofin the general population, pregnant women, men who have sex with men (MSM), commercial sex workers (CSWs) and clinic-based samples, METHODS: We searched Embase, Medline, IndMED, African Index Medicus and LILACS from 1 January 1991 to 12 July 2016 without language restrictions. We included studies with 500 participants or more. Two reviewers independently screened and selected studies and extracted data. We examined forest plots and conducted random-effects meta-analysis to estimate prevalence, if appropriate. Between-study heterogeneity was examined using the Istatistic and meta-regression. RESULTS Of 3316 screened records, 63 were included. In randomly selected samples from the general population, the summary prevalence was 1.3% (95% CI 1.0% to 1.8%, I41.5%, three studies, 9091 people) in countries with higher levels of development and 3.9% (95% CI 2.2 to 6.7, I89.2%, three studies, 3809 people) in countries with lower levels. Prevalence was similar in women and men (P=0.47). In clinic based samples, prevalence estimates were higher, except in asymptomatic patients (0.8%, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.4, I0.0%, three studies, 2889 people). Summary prevalence estimates were, in the following groups: pregnant women 0.9% (95% CI 0.6% to 1.4%, I0%, four studies, 3472 people), MSM in the community 3.2% (95% CI 2.1 to 5.1, I78.3%, five studies, 3012 people) and female CSWs in the community 15.9% (95% CI 13.5 to 18.9, I79.9%, four studies, 4006 people). DISCUSSION This systematic review can inform testing guidelines for. The low estimated prevalence ofin the general population, pregnant women and asymptomatic attenders at clinics does not support expansion of testing to these groups. REGISTRATION NUMBERS PROSPERO: CRD42015020420