FPGA Implementation of a Telecommunications Trainer System

Field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) have been used in a wide range of applications including the field of telecommunications. This paper presents the use of FPGAs in the implementation of both analog and digital modulation that includes amplitude modulation, frequency modulation, phase modulation, pulse code modulation, pulse width modulation, pulse position modulation, pulse amplitude modulation, delta modulation, amplitude shift keying, frequency shift keying, phase shift keying, time division multiplexing and different encoding techniques like non-return-to-zero line code, non-return-to-zero mark line code, non-return to zero inversion line code, Unipolar return-to-zero line code, bipolar return-to-zero line code, alternate mark inversion line code, and Manchester line code. Moreover, an FPGA can be designed to emulate a particular device like an oscilloscope, a function generator, or the like. This paper describes the capability of an FPGA to internally generate a low frequency input signal and through the use of a VGA port, it is able to display the signals in an output device. However, the use of FPGAs is not limited to the aforementioned applications because of its reconfigurability and reprogrammability

A review of community-based solar home system projects in the Philippines

Solar Home Systems (SHS) are easy to deploy in island and in remote communities where grid connection is costly. However, issues related to maintenance of these systems emerge after they are deployed because of the remoteness and inaccessibility of the communities. This study looked into community-based programs in the Philippines and investigated the following: (1) social preparation, (2) role of the community in the project, and (3) sustainability of the program. In this paper, three communities under two government programs offering SHS are presented. These programs are the Solar Power Technology Support (SPOTS) program of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the Household Electrification Program (HEP) of the Department of Energy (DOE). A focused group discussion and key informant interviews were conducted in two communities in Bukidnon province and in a community in Kalinga to obtain information from the project beneficiaries and SHS users on the preparation, implementation and maintenance of the projects. The results revealed that emphasis on the economic value of the technology, proper training of the locals on the technical and management aspects of the project, as well as the establishment of a supply chain for replacement parts are crucial factors for the sustainability of the programs

Rising rural body-mass index is the main driver of the global obesity epidemic in adults

Body-mass index (BMI) has increased steadily in most countries in parallel with a rise in the proportion of the population who live in cities(.)(1,2) This has led to a widely reported view that urbanization is one of the most important drivers of the global rise in obesity(3-6). Here we use 2,009 population-based studies, with measurements of height and weight in more than 112 million adults, to report national, regional and global trends in mean BMI segregated by place of residence (a rural or urban area) from 1985 to 2017. We show that, contrary to the dominant paradigm, more than 55% of the global rise in mean BMI from 1985 to 2017-and more than 80% in some low- and middle-income regions-was due to increases in BMI in rural areas. This large contribution stems from the fact that, with the exception of women in sub-Saharan Africa, BMI is increasing at the same rate or faster in rural areas than in cities in low- and middle-income regions. These trends have in turn resulted in a closing-and in some countries reversal-of the gap in BMI between urban and rural areas in low- and middle-income countries, especially for women. In high-income and industrialized countries, we noted a persistently higher rural BMI, especially for women. There is an urgent need for an integrated approach to rural nutrition that enhances financial and physical access to healthy foods, to avoid replacing the rural undernutrition disadvantage in poor countries with a more general malnutrition disadvantage that entails excessive consumption of low-quality calories.Peer reviewe

Global variations in diabetes mellitus based on fasting glucose and haemogloblin A1c

Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) are both used to diagnose diabetes, but may identify different people as having diabetes. We used data from 117 population-based studies and quantified, in different world regions, the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes, and whether those who were previously undiagnosed and detected as having diabetes in survey screening had elevated FPG, HbA1c, or both. We developed prediction equations for estimating the probability that a person without previously diagnosed diabetes, and at a specific level of FPG, had elevated HbA1c, and vice versa. The age-standardised proportion of diabetes that was previously undiagnosed, and detected in survey screening, ranged from 30% in the high-income western region to 66% in south Asia. Among those with screen-detected diabetes with either test, the agestandardised proportion who had elevated levels of both FPG and HbA1c was 29-39% across regions; the remainder had discordant elevation of FPG or HbA1c. In most low- and middle-income regions, isolated elevated HbA1c more common than isolated elevated FPG. In these regions, the use of FPG alone may delay diabetes diagnosis and underestimate diabetes prevalence. Our prediction equations help allocate finite resources for measuring HbA1c to reduce the global gap in diabetes diagnosis and surveillance.peer-reviewe

Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension can be detected at the primary health-care level and low-cost treatments can effectively control hypertension. We aimed to measure the prevalence of hypertension and progress in its detection, treatment, and control from 1990 to 2019 for 200 countries and territories. METHODS: We used data from 1990 to 2019 on people aged 30-79 years from population-representative studies with measurement of blood pressure and data on blood pressure treatment. We defined hypertension as having systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or taking medication for hypertension. We applied a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and the proportion of people with hypertension who had a previous diagnosis (detection), who were taking medication for hypertension (treatment), and whose hypertension was controlled to below 140/90 mm Hg (control). The model allowed for trends over time to be non-linear and to vary by age. FINDINGS: The number of people aged 30-79 years with hypertension doubled from 1990 to 2019, from 331 (95% credible interval 306-359) million women and 317 (292-344) million men in 1990 to 626 (584-668) million women and 652 (604-698) million men in 2019, despite stable global age-standardised prevalence. In 2019, age-standardised hypertension prevalence was lowest in Canada and Peru for both men and women; in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and some countries in western Europe including Switzerland, Spain, and the UK for women; and in several low-income and middle-income countries such as Eritrea, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Solomon Islands for men. Hypertension prevalence surpassed 50% for women in two countries and men in nine countries, in central and eastern Europe, central Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Globally, 59% (55-62) of women and 49% (46-52) of men with hypertension reported a previous diagnosis of hypertension in 2019, and 47% (43-51) of women and 38% (35-41) of men were treated. Control rates among people with hypertension in 2019 were 23% (20-27) for women and 18% (16-21) for men. In 2019, treatment and control rates were highest in South Korea, Canada, and Iceland (treatment >70%; control >50%), followed by the USA, Costa Rica, Germany, Portugal, and Taiwan. Treatment rates were less than 25% for women and less than 20% for men in Nepal, Indonesia, and some countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Control rates were below 10% for women and men in these countries and for men in some countries in north Africa, central and south Asia, and eastern Europe. Treatment and control rates have improved in most countries since 1990, but we found little change in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Improvements were largest in high-income countries, central Europe, and some upper-middle-income and recently high-income countries including Costa Rica, Taiwan, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Turkey, and Iran. INTERPRETATION: Improvements in the detection, treatment, and control of hypertension have varied substantially across countries, with some middle-income countries now outperforming most high-income nations. The dual approach of reducing hypertension prevalence through primary prevention and enhancing its treatment and control is achievable not only in high-income countries but also in low-income and middle-income settings. FUNDING: WHO

Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants

Background Hypertension can be detected at the primary health-care level and low-cost treatments can effectively control hypertension. We aimed to measure the prevalence of hypertension and progress in its detection, treatment, and control from 1990 to 2019 for 200 countries and territories. Methods We used data from 1990 to 2019 on people aged 30-79 years from population-representative studies with measurement of blood pressure and data on blood pressure treatment. We defined hypertension as having systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or taking medication for hypertension. We applied a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and the proportion of people with hypertension who had a previous diagnosis (detection), who were taking medication for hypertension (treatment), and whose hypertension was controlled to below 140/90 mm Hg (control). The model allowed for trends over time to be non-linear and to vary by age. Findings The number of people aged 30-79 years with hypertension doubled from 1990 to 2019, from 331 (95% credible interval 306-359) million women and 317 (292-344) million men in 1990 to 626 (584-668) million women and 652 (604-698) million men in 2019, despite stable global age-standardised prevalence. In 2019, age-standardised hypertension prevalence was lowest in Canada and Peru for both men and women; in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and some countries in western Europe including Switzerland, Spain, and the UK for women; and in several low-income and middle-income countries such as Eritrea, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Solomon Islands for men. Hypertension prevalence surpassed 50% for women in two countries and men in nine countries, in central and eastern Europe, central Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Globally, 59% (55-62) of women and 49% (46-52) of men with hypertension reported a previous diagnosis of hypertension in 2019, and 47% (43-51) of women and 38% (35-41) of men were treated. Control rates among people with hypertension in 2019 were 23% (20-27) for women and 18% (16-21) for men. In 2019, treatment and control rates were highest in South Korea, Canada, and Iceland (treatment >70%; control >50%), followed by the USA, Costa Rica, Germany, Portugal, and Taiwan. Treatment rates were less than 25% for women and less than 20% for men in Nepal, Indonesia, and some countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Control rates were below 10% for women and men in these countries and for men in some countries in north Africa, central and south Asia, and eastern Europe. Treatment and control rates have improved in most countries since 1990, but we found little change in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Improvements were largest in high-income countries, central Europe, and some upper-middle-income and recently high-income countries including Costa Rica, Taiwan, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Turkey, and Iran. Interpretation Improvements in the detection, treatment, and control of hypertension have varied substantially across countries, with some middle-income countries now outperforming most high-income nations. The dual approach of reducing hypertension prevalence through primary prevention and enhancing its treatment and control is achievable not only in high-income countries but also in low-income and middle-income settings. Copyright (C) 2021 World Health Organization; licensee Elsevier

Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants

Background Hypertension can be detected at the primary health-care level and low-cost treatments can effectively control hypertension. We aimed to measure the prevalence of hypertension and progress in its detection, treatment, and control from 1990 to 2019 for 200 countries and territories. Methods We used data from 1990 to 2019 on people aged 30–79 years from population-representative studies with measurement of blood pressure and data on blood pressure treatment. We defined hypertension as having systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or taking medication for hypertension. We applied a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and the proportion of people with hypertension who had a previous diagnosis (detection), who were taking medication for hypertension (treatment), and whose hypertension was controlled to below 140/90 mm Hg (control). The model allowed for trends over time to be non-linear and to vary by age. Findings The number of people aged 30–79 years with hypertension doubled from 1990 to 2019, from 331 (95% credible interval 306–359) million women and 317 (292–344) million men in 1990 to 626 (584–668) million women and 652 (604–698) million men in 2019, despite stable global age-standardised prevalence. In 2019, age-standardised hypertension prevalence was lowest in Canada and Peru for both men and women; in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and some countries in western Europe including Switzerland, Spain, and the UK for women; and in several low-income and middle-income countries such as Eritrea, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Solomon Islands for men. Hypertension prevalence surpassed 50% for women in two countries and men in nine countries, in central and eastern Europe, central Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Globally, 59% (55–62) of women and 49% (46–52) of men with hypertension reported a previous diagnosis of hypertension in 2019, and 47% (43–51) of women and 38% (35–41) of men were treated. Control rates among people with hypertension in 2019 were 23% (20–27) for women and 18% (16–21) for men. In 2019, treatment and control rates were highest in South Korea, Canada, and Iceland (treatment >70%; control >50%), followed by the USA, Costa Rica, Germany, Portugal, and Taiwan. Treatment rates were less than 25% for women and less than 20% for men in Nepal, Indonesia, and some countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Control rates were below 10% for women and men in these countries and for men in some countries in north Africa, central and south Asia, and eastern Europe. Treatment and control rates have improved in most countries since 1990, but we found little change in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Improvements were largest in high-income countries, central Europe, and some upper-middle-income and recently high-income countries including Costa Rica, Taiwan, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Turkey, and Iran. Interpretation Improvements in the detection, treatment, and control of hypertension have varied substantially across countries, with some middle-income countries now outperforming most high-income nations. The dual approach of reducing hypertension prevalence through primary prevention and enhancing its treatment and control is achievable not only in high-income countries but also in low-income and middle-income settings

Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants

Background Hypertension can be detected at the primary health-care level and low-cost treatments can effectively control hypertension. We aimed to measure the prevalence of hypertension and progress in its detection, treatment, and control from 1990 to 2019 for 200 countries and territories. Methods We used data from 1990 to 2019 on people aged 30–79 years from population-representative studies with measurement of blood pressure and data on blood pressure treatment. We defined hypertension as having systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or taking medication for hypertension. We applied a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and the proportion of people with hypertension who had a previous diagnosis (detection), who were taking medication for hypertension (treatment), and whose hypertension was controlled to below 140/90 mm Hg (control). The model allowed for trends over time to be non-linear and to vary by age. Findings The number of people aged 30–79 years with hypertension doubled from 1990 to 2019, from 331 (95% credible interval 306–359) million women and 317 (292–344) million men in 1990 to 626 (584–668) million women and 652 (604–698) million men in 2019, despite stable global age-standardised prevalence. In 2019, age-standardised hypertension prevalence was lowest in Canada and Peru for both men and women; in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and some countries in western Europe including Switzerland, Spain, and the UK for women; and in several low-income and middle-income countries such as Eritrea, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Solomon Islands for men. Hypertension prevalence surpassed 50% for women in two countries and men in nine countries, in central and eastern Europe, central Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Globally, 59% (55–62) of women and 49% (46–52) of men with hypertension reported a previous diagnosis of hypertension in 2019, and 47% (43–51) of women and 38% (35–41) of men were treated. Control rates among people with hypertension in 2019 were 23% (20–27) for women and 18% (16–21) for men. In 2019, treatment and control rates were highest in South Korea, Canada, and Iceland (treatment >70%; control >50%), followed by the USA, Costa Rica, Germany, Portugal, and Taiwan. Treatment rates were less than 25% for women and less than 20% for men in Nepal, Indonesia, and some countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Control rates were below 10% for women and men in these countries and for men in some countries in north Africa, central and south Asia, and eastern Europe. Treatment and control rates have improved in most countries since 1990, but we found little change in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Improvements were largest in high-income countries, central Europe, and some upper-middle-income and recently high-income countries including Costa Rica, Taiwan, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Turkey, and Iran. Interpretation Improvements in the detection, treatment, and control of hypertension have varied substantially across countries, with some middle-income countries now outperforming most high-income nations. The dual approach of reducing hypertension prevalence through primary prevention and enhancing its treatment and control is achievable not only in high-income countries but also in low-income and middle-income settings

Heterogeneous contributions of change in population distribution of body mass index to change in obesity and underweight NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC)

From 1985 to 2016, the prevalence of underweight decreased, and that of obesity and severe obesity increased, in most regions, with significant variation in the magnitude of these changes across regions. We investigated how much change in mean body mass index (BMI) explains changes in the prevalence of underweight, obesity, and severe obesity in different regions using data from 2896 population-based studies with 187 million participants. Changes in the prevalence of underweight and total obesity, and to a lesser extent severe obesity, are largely driven by shifts in the distribution of BMI, with smaller contributions from changes in the shape of the distribution. In East and Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, the underweight tail of the BMI distribution was left behind as the distribution shifted. There is a need for policies that address all forms of malnutrition by making healthy foods accessible and affordable, while restricting unhealthy foods through fiscal and regulatory restrictions

Trends in cardiometabolic risk factors in the Americas between 1980 and 2014: a pooled analysis of population-based surveys

Background: Describing the prevalence and trends of cardiometabolic risk factors that are associated with noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) is crucial for monitoring progress, planning prevention, and providing evidence to support policy efforts. We aimed to analyse the transition in body-mass index (BMI), obesity, blood pressure, raised blood pressure, and diabetes in the Americas, between 1980 and 2014. Methods: We did a pooled analysis of population-based studies with data on anthropometric measurements, biomarkers for diabetes, and blood pressure from adults aged 18 years or older. A Bayesian model was used to estimate trends in BMI, raised blood pressure (systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg), and diabetes (fasting plasma glucose ≥7•0 mmol/L, history of diabetes, or diabetes treatment) from 1980 to 2014, in 37 countries and six subregions of the Americas. Findings: 389 population-based surveys from the Americas were available. Comparing prevalence estimates from 2014 with those of 1980, in the non-English speaking Caribbean subregion, the prevalence of obesity increased from 3•9% (95% CI 2•2–6•3) in 1980, to 18•6% (14•3–23•3) in 2014, in men; and from 12•2% (8•2–17•0) in 1980, to 30•5% (25•7–35•5) in 2014, in women. The English-speaking Caribbean subregion had the largest increase in the prevalence of diabetes, from 5•2% (2•1–10•4) in men and 6•4% (2•6–10•4) in women in 1980, to 11•1% (6•4–17•3) in men and 13•6% (8•2–21•0) in women in 2014). Conversely, the prevalence of raised blood pressure has decreased in all subregions; the largest decrease was found in North America from 27•6% (22•3–33•2) in men and 19•9% (15•8–24•4) in women in 1980, to 15•5% (11•1–20•9) in men and 10•7% (7•7–14•5) in women in 2014. Interpretation: Despite the generally high prevalence of cardiometabolic risk factors across the Americas, estimates also showed a high level of heterogeneity in the transition between countries. The increasing prevalence of obesity and diabetes observed over time requires appropriate measures to deal with these public health challenges. Our results support a diversification of health interventions across subregions and countries.Fil: Miranda, J. Jaime. Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia; PerúFil: Carrillo-Larco, Rodrigo M.. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Ferreccio, Catterina. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; ChileFil: Hambleton, Ian R.. The University Of The West Indies; BarbadosFil: Lotufo, Paulo A.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Nieto-Martinez, Ramfis. Miami Veterans Affairs Healthcare System; Estados UnidosFil: Zhou, Bin. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Bentham, James. University Of Kent; Reino UnidoFil: Bixby, Honor. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Hajifathalian, Kaveh. Cleveland Clinic; Estados UnidosFil: Lu, Yuan. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Taddei, Cristina. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Abarca-Gomez, Leandra. Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social; Costa RicaFil: Acosta-Cazares, Benjamin. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social; MéxicoFil: Aguilar-Salinas, Carlos A.. (Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición; MéxicoFil: Andrade, Dolores S.. Universidad de Cuenca; EcuadorFil: Assunção, Maria Cecilia F.. Universidade Federal de Pelotas; BrasilFil: Barcelo, Alberto. Pan American Health Organization; Estados UnidosFil: Barros, Aluisio J.D.. Universidade Federal de Pelotas; BrasilFil: Barros, Mauro V.G.. Universidade de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Bata, Iqbal. Dalhousie University Halifax; CanadáFil: Batista, Rosangela L.. Universidade Federal Do Maranhao; BrasilFil: Benet, Mikhail. Cafam University Foundation; ColombiaFil: Bernabe-Ortiz, Antonio. Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia; PerúFil: Bettiol, Heloisa. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Boggia, Jose G.. Universidad de la Republica; UruguayFil: Boissonnet, Carlos P.. Centro de Educación Médica e Investigaciones Clínicas; ArgentinaFil: Brewster, Lizzy M.. University of Amsterdam; Países BajosFil: Cameron, Christine. Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute; CanadáFil: Cândido, Ana Paula C.. Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora; BrasilFil: Cardoso, Viviane C.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Chan, Queenie. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Christofaro, Diego G.. Universidade Estadual Paulista; BrasilFil: Confortin, Susana C.. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina; BrasilFil: Craig, Cora L.. Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute; CanadáFil: d'Orsi, Eleonora. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina; BrasilFil: Delisle, Hélène. University of Montreal; CanadáFil: De Oliveira, Paula Duarte. Universidade Federal de Pelotas; BrasilFil: Dias-da-Costa, Juvenal Soares. Universidade do Vale do Rio Dos Sinos; BrasilFil: Diaz, Alberto Alejandro. Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Escuela Superior de Ciencias de la Salud. Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tandil; Argentina. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Municipalidad de Tandil. Hospital Municipal Ramón Santamarina; ArgentinaFil: Donoso, Silvana P.. Universidad de Cuenca; EcuadorFil: Elliott, Paul. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Escobedo-de La Peña, Jorge. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social; MéxicoFil: Ferguson, Trevor S.. The University of The West Indies; JamaicaFil: Fernandes, Romulo A.. Universidade Estadual Paulista; BrasilFil: Ferrante, Daniel. Ministerio de Salud; ArgentinaFil: Flores, Eric Monterubio. Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública; MéxicoFil: Francis, Damian K.. The University of The West Indies; JamaicaFil: Do Carmo Franco, Maria. Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Fuchs, Flavio D.. Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre; BrasilFil: Fuchs, Sandra C.. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; BrasilFil: Goltzman, David. Université McGill; CanadáFil: Gonçalves, Helen. Universidade Federal de Pelotas; BrasilFil: Gonzalez-Rivas, Juan P.. The Andes Clinic Of Cardio-Metabolic Studies; VenezuelaFil: Gorbea, Mariano Bonet. Instituto Nacional de Higiene, Epidemiología y Microbiología; CubaFil: Gregor, Ronald D.. Dalhousie University Halifax; CanadáFil: Guerrero, Ramiro. Universidad Icesi; ColombiaFil: Guimaraes, Andre L.. Universidade Estadual de Montes Claros; BrasilFil: Gulliford, Martin C.. King’s College London; Reino UnidoFil: Gutierrez, Laura. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Hernandez Cadena, Leticia. Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública; MéxicoFil: Herrera, Víctor M.. (Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga; ColombiaFil: Hopman, Wilma M.. Kingston General Hospital; CanadáFil: Horimoto, Andrea RVR. Instituto do Coração; BrasilFil: Hormiga, Claudia M.. Fundación Oftalmológica de Santander; ColombiaFil: Horta, Bernardo L.. Universidade Federal de Pelotas; BrasilFil: Howitt, Christina. The University of the West Indies; BarbadosFil: Irazola, Wilma E.. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Jiménez-Acosta, Santa Magaly. Instituto Nacional de Higiene, Epidemiología y Microbiología; CubaFil: Joffres, Michel. Simon Fraser University; CanadáFil: Kolsteren, Patricia. (Institute of Tropical Medicine; BélgicaFil: Landrove, Orlando. Ministerio de Salud Pública; CubaFil: Li, Yanping. Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health; Estados UnidosFil: Lilly, Christa L.. West Virginia University; Estados UnidosFil: Lima-Costa, M. Fernanda. Fundação Oswaldo Cruz; BrasilFil: Louzada Strufaldi, Maria Wany. Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Machado-Coelho, George L. L.. Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto; BrasilFil: Makdisse, Marcia. Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein; BrasilFil: Margozzini, Paula. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; ChileFil: Pruner Marques, Larissa. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina; BrasilFil: Martorell, Reynaldo. Emory University; Estados UnidosFil: Mascarenhas, Luis. Universidade Federal do Paraná; BrasilFil: Matijasevich, Alicia. Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Mc Donald Posso, Anselmo J.. Gorgas Memorial Institute of Health Studies; PanamáFil: McFarlane, Shelly R.. The University of the West Indies; JamaicaFil: McLean, Scott B.. (Statistics Canada; CanadáFil: Menezes, Ana Maria B.. Universidade Federal de Pelotas; BrasilFil: Miquel, Juan Francisco. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; ChileFil: Mohanna, Salim. Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia; PerúFil: Monterrubio, Eric A.. Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública; MéxicoFil: Moreira, Leila B.. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; BrasilFil: Morejon, Alain. Universidad de Ciencias Médicas; CubaFil: Motta, Jorge. Gorgas Memorial Institute of Public Health; PanamáFil: Neal, William A.. West Virginia University; Estados UnidosFil: Nervi, Flavio. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; ChileFil: Noboa, Oscar A.. Universidad de la República; UruguayFil: Ochoa-Avilés, Angélica M.. Universidad de Cuenca; EcuadorFil: Olinto, Maria Teresa Anselmo. Universidad de Vale do Rio dos Sinos; BrasilFil: Oliveira, Isabel O.. Universidade Federal de Pelotas; BrasilFil: Ono, Lariane M.. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina; BrasilFil: Ordunez, Pedro. Pan American Health Organization; Estados UnidosFil: Ortiz, Ana P.. Universidad de Puerto Rico; Puerto RicoFil: Otero, Johanna A.. Fundación Oftalmológica de Santander; ColombiaFil: Palloni, Alberto. University of Wisconsin-Madison; Estados UnidosFil: Viana Peixoto, Sergio. Fundação Oswaldo Cruz; BrasilFil: Pereira, Alexandre C.. Instituto do Coração; BrasilFil: Pérez, Cynthia M.. Universidad de Puerto Rico; Puerto RicoFil: Rangel Reina, Daniel A.. Gorgas Memorial Institute of Health Studies; PanamáFil: Ribeiro, Robespierre. Secretaria de Estado de Saúde de Minas Gerais; BrasilFil: Ritti-Dias, Raphael M.. Universidade Nove de Julho; BrasilFil: Rivera, Juan A.. Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública; MéxicoFil: Robitaille, Cynthia. Public Health Agency of Canada; CanadáFil: Rodríguez-Villamizar, Laura A.. Universidad Industrial de Santander; ColombiaFil: Rojas-Martinez, Rosalba. Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública; MéxicoFil: Roy, Joel G. R.. Statistics Canada; CanadáFil: Rubinstein, Adolfo Luis. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Ruiz-Betancourt, Blanca Sandra. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social; MéxicoFil: Salazar Martinez, Eduardo. Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública; MéxicoFil: Sánchez-Abanto, José. Instituto Nacional de Salud; PerúFil: Santos , Ina S.. Universidade Federal de Pelotas; BrasilFil: dos Santos, Renata Nunes. Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Scazufca, Marcia. Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Schargrodsky, Herman. Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Silva, Antonio M.. Universidade Federal do Maranhao; BrasilFil: Santos Silva, Diego Augusto. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina; BrasilFil: Stein, Aryeh D.. Emory University; Estados UnidosFil: Suárez-Medina, Ramón. Instituto Nacional de Higiene, Epidemiología y Microbiología; CubaFil: Tarqui-Mamani, Carolina B.. Instituto Nacional de Salud; PerúFil: Tulloch-Reid, Marshall K.. The University of the West Indies; JamaicaFil: Ueda, Peter. Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health; Estados UnidosFil: Ugel, Eunice E.. Universidad Centro-Occidental Lisandro Alvarado; VenezuelaFil: Valdivia, Gonzalo. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; ChileFil: Varona, Patricia. Instituto Nacional de Higiene, Epidemiología y Microbiología; CubaFil: Velasquez-Melendez, Gustavo. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais; BrasilFil: Verstraeten, Roosmarijn. Institute of Tropical Medicine; BélgicaFil: Victora, Cesar G.. Universidade Federal de Pelotas; BrasilFil: Wanderley Jr, Rildo S.. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Wang, Ming-Dong. Public Health Agency of Canada; CanadáFil: Wilks, Rainford J.. The University of the West Indies; JamaicaFil: Wong-McClure, Roy A.. Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social; Costa RicaFil: Younger-Coleman, Novie O.. The University of the West Indies; JamaicaFil: Zuñiga Cisneros, Julio. Gorgas Memorial Institute of Public Health; PanamáFil: Danaei, Goodarz. Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health; Estados UnidosFil: Stevens, Gretchen A.. World Health Organization; SuizaFil: Riley, Leanne M.. World Health Organization; SuizaFil: Ezzati, Majid. (Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Di Cesare, Mariachiara. Middlesex University; Reino Unid