Association of smoking and cancer with the risk of venous thromboembolism: the Scandinavian Thrombosis and Cancer cohort

Smoking is a well-established risk factor for cancer, and cancer patients have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Conflicting results have been reported on the association between smoking and risk of VTE, and the effect of smoking on VTE-risk in subjects with cancer is scarcely studied. We aimed to investigate the association between smoking and VTE in subjects with and without cancer in a large population-based cohort. The Scandinavian Thrombosis and Cancer (STAC) cohort included 144,952 participants followed from 1993–1997 to 2008–2012. Information on smoking habits was derived from self-administered questionnaires. Active cancer was defined as the first two years following the date of cancer diagnosis. Former smokers (n = 35,890) and those with missing information on smoking status (n = 3680) at baseline were excluded. During a mean follow up of 11 years, 10,181 participants were diagnosed with cancer, and 1611 developed incident VTE, of which 214 were cancer-related. Smoking was associated with a 50% increased risk of VTE (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.12–1.98) in cancer patients, whereas no association was found in cancer-free subjects (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96–1.20). In cancer patients, the risk of VTE among smokers remained unchanged after adjustment for cancer site and metastasis. Stratified analyses showed that smoking was a risk factor for VTE among those with smoking-related and advanced cancers. In conclusion, smoking was associated with increased VTE risk in subjects with active cancer, but not in those without cancer. Our findings imply a biological interaction between cancer and smoking on the risk of VTE

The prevalence of and factors associated with inclusion of non-English language studies in Campbell systematic reviews:a survey and meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND: Studies published in languages other than English are often neglected when research teams conduct systematic reviews. Literature on how to deal with non-English studies when conducting reviews have focused on the importance of including such studies, while less attention has been paid to the practical challenges of locating and assessing relevant non-English studies. We investigated the factors which might predict the inclusion of non-English studies in systematic reviews in the social sciences, to better understand how, when and why these are included/excluded.METHODS: We appraised all Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews (n = 123) published to July 2016, categorising each by its language inclusiveness. We sought additional information from review authors via a questionnaire and received responses concerning 47 reviews. Data were obtained for 17 factors and we explored correlations with the number of non-English studies in the reviews via statistical regression models. Additionally, we asked authors to identify factors that support or hinder the inclusion of non-English studies.RESULTS: Of 123 reviews, 108 did not explicitly exclude, and of these, 17 included non-English language studies. One factor correlated with the number of included non-English studies across all models: the number of countries in which the members of the review team work (B-value = 0.56; SE B = 0.24; 95% CI = 0.07-1.03; p = 0.02). This indicates that reviews which included non-English studies were more likely to be produced by international review teams. Our survey showed a dominance of researchers from English-speaking countries (52.9%) and review teams consisting only of team members from these countries (65.9%). The most frequently mentioned challenge to including non-English studies was a lack of resources (funding and time) followed by a lack of language resources (e.g. professional translators).CONCLUSION: Our findings may indicate a connection between the limited inclusion of non-English studies and a lack of resources, which forces review teams to rely on their limited language skills rather than the support of professional translators. If unaddressed, review teams risk ignoring key data and introduce bias in otherwise high-quality reviews. However, the validity and interpretation of our findings should be further assessed if we are to tackle the challenges of dealing with non-English studies.</p

Methods for conducting systematic reviews of risk factors in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Rates of youth violence are disproportionately high in many low- and middle-income countries [LMICs] but existing reviews of risk factors focus almost exclusively on high-income countries. Different search strategies, including non-English language searches, might be required to identify relevant evidence in LMICs. This paper discusses methodological issues in systematic reviews aiming to include evidence from LMICs, using the example of a recent review of risk factors for child conduct problems and youth violence in LMICs. METHODS: We searched the main international databases, such as PsycINFO, Medline and EMBASE in English, as well as 12 regional databases in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian. In addition, we used internet search engines and Google Scholar, and contacted over 200 researchers and organizations to identify potentially eligible studies in LMICs. RESULTS: The majority of relevant studies were identified in the mainstream databases, but additional studies were also found through regional databases, such as CNKI, Wangfang, LILACS and SciELO. Overall, 85% of eligible studies were in English, and 15% were reported in Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian or French. Among eligible studies in languages other than English, two-thirds were identified only by regional databases and one-third was also indexed in the main international databases. CONCLUSIONS: There are many studies on child conduct problems and youth violence in LMICs which have not been included in prior reviews. Most research on these subjects in LMICs has been produced in the last two-three decades and mostly in middle-income countries, such as China, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa and Russia. Based on our findings, it appears that many studies of child conduct problems and youth violence in LMICs are reported in English, Chinese, Spanish and Portuguese, but few such studies are published in French, Arabic or Russian. If non-English language searches and screening had not been conducted in the current review, 15% of eligible studies would have been missed. Although there are benefits to non-English language searches and the inclusion of non-English studies in meta-analyses, systematic reviewers also need to consider the resources required to incorporate multi-lingual research.We are grateful to the Wellcome Trust [089963/Z/09/Z] and Bernard van Leer Foundation for financial support for the research

Evidence and gap map of studies assessing the effectiveness of interventions for people with disabilities in low‐and middle‐income countries

Background: There are approximately 1 billion people in the world with some form of disability. This corresponds to approximately 15% of the world's population (World Report on Disability, 2011). The majority of people with disabilities (80%) live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where disability has been shown to disproportionately affect the most disadvantaged sector of the population. Decision makers need to know what works, and what does not, to best invest limited resources aimed at improving the well-being of people with disabilities in LMICs. Systematic reviews and impact evaluations help answer this question. Improving the availability of existing evidence will help stakeholders to draw on current knowledge and to understand where new research investments can guide decision-making on appropriate use of resources. Evidence and gap maps (EGMs) contribute by showing what evidence there is, and supporting the prioritization of global evidence synthesis needs and primary data collection. Objectives: The aim of this EGM is to identify, map and describe existing evidence of effectiveness studies and highlight gaps in evidence base for people with disabilities in LMICs. The map helps identify priority evidence gaps for systematic reviews and impact evaluations. Methods: The EGM included impact evaluation and systematic reviews assessing the effect of interventions for people with disabilities and their families/carers. These interventions were categorized across the five components of community-based rehabilitation matrix; health, education, livelihood, social and empowerment. Included studies looked at outcomes such as, health, education, livelihoods, social inclusion and empowerment, and were published for LMICs from 2000 onwards until January 2018. The searches were conducted between February and March 2018. The EGM is presented as a matrix in which the rows are intervention categories (e.g., health) and subcategories (e.g., rehabilitation) and the column outcome domains (e.g., health) and subdomains (e.g., immunization). Each cell lists the studies for that intervention for those outcomes, with links to the available studies. Included studies were therefore mapped according to intervention and outcomes assessed and additional filters as region, population and study design were also coded. Critical appraisal of included systematic review was done using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews’ rating scale. We also quality-rated the impact evaluation using a quality assessment tool based on various approaches to risk of bias assessment. Results: The map includes 166 studies, of which 59 are systematic reviews and 107 impact evaluation. The included impact evaluation are predominantly quasiexperimental studies (47%). The numbers of studies published each year have increased steadily from the year 2000, with the largest number published in 2017.The studies are unevenly distributed across intervention areas. Health is the most heavily populated area of the map. A total of 118 studies of the 166 studies concern health interventions. Education is next most heavily populated with 40 studies in the education intervention/outcome sector. There are relatively few studies for livelihoods and social, and virtually none for empowerment. The most frequent outcome measures are health-related, including mental health and cognitive development (n = 93), rehabilitation (n = 32), mortality and morbidity (n = 23) and health check-up (n = 15). Very few studies measured access to assistive devices, nutrition and immunization. Over half (n = 49) the impact evaluation come from upper-middle income countries. There are also geographic gaps, most notably for low income countries (n = 9) and lower-middle income countries (n = 34). There is a fair amount of evidence from South Asia (n = 73) and Sub-Saharan Africa (n = 51). There is a significant gap with respect to study quality, especially with respect to impact evaluation. There appears to be a gap between the framing of the research, which is mostly within the medical model and not using the social model of disability. Conclusion: Investing in interventions to improve well-being of people with disabilities will be critical to achieving the 2030 agenda for sustainable development goals. The EGM summarized here provides a starting point for researchers, decision makers and programme managers to access the available research evidence on the effectiveness of interventions for people with disabilities in LMICs in order to guide policy and programme activity, and encourage a more strategic, policy-oriented approach to setting the future research agenda

Existing data sources in clinical epidemiology: the Scandinavian Thrombosis and Cancer Cohort

Hilde Jensvoll,1,2 Marianne T Severinsen,3,4 Jens Hammerstr&oslash;m,5 Sigrid K Br&aelig;kkan,1,2 S&oslash;ren R Kristensen,4,6 Suzanne C Cannegieter,7 Kristine Blix,1,2 Anne Tj&oslash;nneland,8 Frits R Rosendaal,1,7,9 Olga Dziewiecka,1 Kim Overvad,10,11 Inger Anne N&aelig;ss,12 John-Bjarne Hansen1,21Department of Clinical Medicine, KG Jebsen &ndash; Thrombosis Research and Expertise Center (TREC), UiT &ndash; The Arctic University of Norway, 2Division of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of North Norway, Troms&oslash;, Norway; 3Department of Hematology, Aalborg University Hospital, 4Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark; 5Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway; 6Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark; 7Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; 8Diet, Genes and Environment, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark; 9Department of Thrombosis and Hemostasis, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; 10Department of Cardiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, 11Department of Public Health, Section for Epidemiology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark; 12Department of Hematology, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, NorwayBackground: Although venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a known common complication in cancer patients, there is limited knowledge on patient-related and cancer-specific risk factors in the general population. The Scandinavian Thrombosis and Cancer (STAC) Cohort was established by merging individual data from three large Scandinavian cohorts (The Troms&oslash; Study, the second Nord-Tr&oslash;ndelag Health Study, and the Danish Diet, Cancer and Health Study). Here, we present the profile of the STAC cohort and provide age-specific incidence rates of VTE and cancerMethods: The STAC cohort includes 144,952 subjects aged 19&ndash;101 years without previous VTE or cancer. Baseline information collected in 1993&ndash;1997 included physical examination, self-administered questionnaires, and blood samples. Validated VTE events and cancer diagnoses were registered up to 2007&ndash;2012.Results: There were 2,444 VTE events (1.4 per 1,000 person-years [PY]) during follow-up, and the incidence increased exponentially from 0.3 per 1,000 PY in subjects aged 20&ndash;29 years to 6.4 per 1,000 PY in subjects aged 80+. Overall, 51% of the VTE events were provoked, and cancer was the most common provoking factor (19%), followed by immobilization and surgery (both 15%). In total, 19,757 subjects developed cancer during follow-up (9.8 per 1,000 PY), and the 5-year age-specific incidence rates of cancer were coherent with corresponding rates from the Norwegian Cancer Registry.Conclusion: The STAC cohort will provide a unique opportunity to explore the epidemiology and impact of genetic and environmental patient-related and cancer-specific risk factors for VTE in the general population.Keywords: venous thromboembolism, incidence rates, person-years, pulmonary embolism, population-based cohort, prospective, cance

The Impact of Initial Cancer Stage on the Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism:The Scandinavian Thrombosis and Cancer (STAC) Cohort

Thrombosis and Hemostasi

Existing data sources in clinical epidemiology:the Scandinavian Thrombosis and Cancer Cohort

Background: Although venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a known common complication in cancer patients, there is limited knowledge on patient-related and cancer-specific risk factors in the general population. The Scandinavian Thrombosis and Cancer (STAC) Cohort was established by merging individual data from three large Scandinavian cohorts (The Tromsø Study, the second Nord-Trøndelag Health Study, and the Danish Diet, Cancer and Health Study). Here, we present the profile of the STAC cohort and provide age-specific incidence rates of VTE and cancer Methods: The STAC cohort includes 144,952 subjects aged 19–101 years without previous VTE or cancer. Baseline information collected in 1993–1997 included physical examination, self-administered questionnaires, and blood samples. Validated VTE events and cancer diagnoses were registered up to 2007–2012. Results: There were 2,444 VTE events (1.4 per 1,000 person-years [PY]) during follow-up, and the incidence increased exponentially from 0.3 per 1,000 PY in subjects aged 20–29 years to 6.4 per 1,000 PY in subjects aged 80+. Overall, 51% of the VTE events were provoked, and cancer was the most common provoking factor (19%), followed by immobilization and surgery (both 15%). In total, 19,757 subjects developed cancer during follow-up (9.8 per 1,000 PY), and the 5-year age-specific incidence rates of cancer were coherent with corresponding rates from the Norwegian Cancer Registry. Conclusion: The STAC cohort will provide a unique opportunity to explore the epidemiology and impact of genetic and environmental patient-related and cancer-specific risk factors for VTE in the general population. Keywords: venous thromboembolism, incidence rates, person-years, pulmonary embolism, population-based cohort, prospective, cance