Systematic screening for unsafe driving due to medical conditions: Still debatable

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Assessing people's ability to drive has become a public health concern in most industrialized countries. Although age itself is not a predictive factor of an increased risk for dangerous driving, the prevalence of medical conditions that may impair driving increases with age. Because the implementation of a screening for unsafe driving due to medical conditions is a public health issue, its usefulness should be judged using standardised criteria already proposed for screening for chronic disease. The aim of this paper is to propose standardised criteria suitable to assess the scientific validity of screening for unsafe driving due to medical conditions, and identify potential issues to be clarified before screening can be implemented and effective.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Using criteria developed for screening for chronic diseases and published studies on driving with medical conditions, we specify six criteria to judge the opportunity of screening for unsafe driving due to medical conditions. This adaptation was needed because of the complexity of the natural history of medical conditions and their potential consequences on driving and road safety. We then illustrate that published studies pleading for or against screening for unsafe driving due to medical conditions fail to provide the needed documentation. Individual criteria were mentioned in 3 to 72% of 36 papers pleading for or against screening. Quantitative estimates of relevant indicators were provided in at most 42% of papers, and some data, such as the definition of an appropriate unsafe driving period were never provided.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>The standardised framework described in this paper provides a template for assessing the effectiveness (or lack of effectiveness) of proposed measures for screening for unsafe driving due to medical conditions. Even if most criteria were mentioned in the published literature pleading for or against such a screening, the failure to find quantitative and evidence-based estimates of relevant indicators provides useful insight for further research.</p

Prescription Medicines and the Risk of Road Traffic Crashes: A French Registry-Based Study

Using three nationwide databases in France, Ludivine Orriols, Emmanuel Lagarde, and colleagues provide evidence that prescribed medicines contribute to the risk of experiencing a road traffic crash

Differences in police, ambulance, and emergency department reporting of traffic injuries on Karachi-Hala road, Pakistan

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Research undertaken in developing countries has assessed discrepancies in police reporting of Road Traffic Injury (RTI) for urban settings only. The objective of this study was to assess differences in RTI reporting across police, ambulance, and hospital Emergency Department (ED) datasets on an interurban road section in Pakistan.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study setting was the 196-km long Karachi-Hala road section. RTIs reported to the police, Edhi Ambulance Service (EAS), and five hospital EDs in Karachi during 2008 (Jan to Dec) were compared in terms of road user involved (pedestrians, motorcyclists, four-wheeled vehicle occupants) and outcome (died or injured). Further, records from these data were matched to assess ascertainment of traffic injuries and deaths by the three datasets.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 143 RTIs were reported to the police, 531 to EAS, and 661 to hospital EDs. Fatality per hundred traffic injuries was twice as high in police records (19 per 100 RTIs) than in ambulance (10 per 100 RTIs) and hospital ED records (9 per 100 RTIs). Pedestrian and motorcyclist involvement per hundred traffic injuries was lower in police records (8 per 100 RTIs) than in ambulance (17 per 100 RTIs) and hospital ED records (43 per 100 RTIs). Of the 119 deaths independently identified after matching, police recorded 22.6%, EAS 46.2%, and hospital ED 50.4%. Similarly, police data accounted for 10.6%, EAS 43.5%, and hospital ED 54.9% of the 1 095 independently identified injured patients.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Police reporting, particularly of non-fatal RTIs and those involving vulnerable road users, should be improved in Pakistan.</p

A united statement of the global chiropractic research community against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity.

BACKGROUND: In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) posted reports claiming that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. These claims clash with recommendations from the World Health Organization and World Federation of Chiropractic. We discuss the scientific validity of the claims made in these ICA reports. MAIN BODY: We reviewed the two reports posted by the ICA on their website on March 20 and March 28, 2020. We explored the method used to develop the claim that chiropractic adjustments impact the immune system and discuss the scientific merit of that claim. We provide a response to the ICA reports and explain why this claim lacks scientific credibility and is dangerous to the public. More than 150 researchers from 11 countries reviewed and endorsed our response. CONCLUSION: In their reports, the ICA provided no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. We call on regulatory authorities and professional leaders to take robust political and regulatory action against those claiming that chiropractic adjustments have a clinical impact on the immune system

Breastfeeding, atopy, and asthma.

CorrespondenceInternational audiencenon disponibl

Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique

Nous proposons un cadre méthodologique destiné aux experts impliqués dans l'appui à la décision concernant les interventions de santé publique. Le cadre méthodologique comprend quatre éléments : 1) une série de neuf questions, formulées en termes non techniques, pertinentes pour juger de l'utilité d'une intervention, considérée à un moment donné dans un contexte donné ; 2) une traduction de ces questions en concepts liés à l'évaluation des interventions (définition de l'intervention, de sa cible et de son objectif, efficacités potentielle et réelle, sécurité, efficience et équité) ; 3) une organisation logique des informations nécessaires pour répondre aux questions ; 4) un algorithme permettant de traduire les informations disponibles en recommandations sur l'utilité réelle de l'intervention dans le contexte où les questions ont été posées. Chaque étape est illustrée par des questions posées sur des interventions de sécurité routière, le dépistage, la transfusion sanguine et des mesures proposées pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. La décision peut être facilitée si les experts fournissent aux décideurs un résumé formel des forces et faiblesses des connaissances, fondé sur une analyse de toutes les facettes de l'utilité potentielle d'une intervention.We have designed a methodological framework for experts involved in the support of decision-making in public health interventions. The methodological framework consists of four elements: 1) A series of nine questions, formulated in non-technical terms, relevant to assessment of the usefulness of an intervention, at a given time in a given context; 2) Translation of these questions into concepts related to the evaluation of interventions (definition of the intervention, its target and objective, potential and actual effectiveness, safety, efficiency, and equity); 3) Logical organization of the information needed to address and answer the questions; and 4) An algorithm to translate the available information into recommendations on the real usefulness of the intervention in the context in which the questions were raised. Each step is illustrated by questions raised about road safety interventions, screening, blood transfusion and measures proposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Decision-making can be facilitated if experts provide decision-makers with a formal summary of the strengths and weaknesses of existing knowledge, based on an analysis of all facets of an intervention's potential usefulness

Clinically informative measures of the effect of drugs or other interventions

International audienceUNLABELLED: WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT: Several comparative measures (ratios, differences, or the number needed to treat) are used to express the effect of a drug or another intervention. These measures can vary in the way they are affected by the background risk measured from the reference group. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: This paper reviews the formulation, interpretation and limitations of measures of effect. We describe a little-known parameter, the attained effect or clinical result ratio, a positive reformulation of the relative risk difference, and suggest how available parameters can be best used to summarize results of studies of the effect of drugs. AIMS Measures to compare two drugs are often affected by the background risk in the reference group; a ceiling effect results when the background risk is small. We review measures of the effect of drugs, including a special formulation of the relative risk difference, the attained effect or clinical result ratio, that addresses background risk and ceiling effect. METHODS: Existing measures are the risk and odds ratios, the absolute and relative risk differences, and the number needed to treat. The attained effect is defined as the observed gain in success (the difference of proportion of success between the two interventions), divided by the maximum attainable gain, the maximum proportion of success one can expect. We illustrate the relationship between these measures with published results of two meta-analyses. RESULTS: In studies of the effectiveness of cell salvage, the baseline risk ranged between 8 and 95%. This variability affected the risk difference and number needed to treat, while the attained effect, with a ceiling residual risk of 2%, showed that the gain in success was half the maximum attainable gain. In studies of the effectiveness of therapy in patients infected by the human immunodeficiency virus, where the baseline risk was less variable, and there was no ceiling effect, the maximum attained effect indicated that the gain could be much smaller. CONCLUSION: The attained effect, interpreted as the proportion of effectiveness that remains to gain for future interventions, can usefully complete the number needed to treat as a clinically informative effect measure

Association between road vehicle collisions and recent medical contact in older drivers: a case‐crossover study

International audienceOBJECTIVE: To estimate the association between past medical contacts and the risk of vehicle collision in a population of older drivers from the province of Quebec, Canada. DESIGN: Case-crossover study. SETTING: Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: 111 699 older drivers involved in at least one vehicle collision between January 1988 and December 2000. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For each driver, the risk of having a vehicle collision while exposed and not exposed to a medical contact was compared. Separate conditional logistic regression analyses were conducted for all drivers and in four diagnostic-specific subgroups. RESULTS: The study found a weak but statistically significant increased risk of all collisions being associated with a medical contact within 1 month before the collision, for all drivers (OR=1.10, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.11) and for drivers with diabetes (OR=1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11). CONCLUSION: Older drivers who have a collision are more likely to have been in contact with a physician shortly before the collision. These findings suggest that there might be an opportunity to detect medical conditions that put older drivers at higher risk of collision; however, further research is needed to assess the potential effectiveness and practical modalities of screening