29 research outputs found

    Systematic review of worldwide variations of the prevalence of wheezing symptoms in children

    Get PDF
    Background: Considerable variation in the prevalence of childhood asthma and its symptoms (wheezing) has been observed in previous studies and there is evidence that the prevalence has been increasing over time. Methods: We have systematically reviewed the reported prevalence and time trends of wheezing symptoms among children, worldwide and within the same country over time. All studies comprising more than 1000 persons and meeting certain other quality criteria published over a 16-year period, between January 1990 and December 2005, are reported and a comparison of ISAAC (International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood) and non-ISAAC studies is made, in part as a way of expanding the power to examine time trends (the older studies tend to be non-ISAAC), but also to examine possible methodological differences between ISAAC and non-ISAAC questions. Results: A wide range of current prevalence of wheeze was observed between and within countries over time. The UK had the highest recorded prevalence of 32.2% in children aged 13–14 in 1994–5 and Ethiopia had the lowest prevalence, 1.7% in children aged 10–19 in 1996. All studies in Australia and the UK were compared using multiple logistic regression. ISAAC phase I and III studies reported significantly higher prevalence of current wheeze (OR = 1.638) compared with non-ISAAC studies, after adjusting for various other factors (country, survey year, age of child, parental vs child response to the survey). Australia showed a significantly higher prevalence of current wheezing (OR = 1.343) compared with the UK, there was a significant increase in the prevalence odds ratio per survey year (2.5% per year), a significant decrease per age of child (0.7% per year), and a significantly higher response in current wheezing if the response was self-completed by the child (OR = 1.290). These factors, when explored separately for ISAAC and non-ISAAC studies, showed very different results. In ISAAC studies, or non-ISAAC studies using ISAAC questions, there was a significant decrease in current wheezing prevalence over time (2.5% per year). In non-ISAAC studies, which tend to cover an earlier period, there was a significant increase (2.6% per year) in current wheezing prevalence over time. This is very likely to be a result of prevalence of wheezing increasing from the 1970s up to the early 1990s, but decreasing since then. Conclusion: The UK has the highest recorded prevalence of wheezing and Ethiopia the lowest. Prevalence of wheezing in Australia and the UK has increased from the 1970s up to the early 1990s, but decreased since then and ISAAC studies report significantly higher prevalences than non-ISAAC studies

    The clinical practice guideline for the management of ARDS in Japan

    Full text link

    Results of a national survey among Dutch surgeons treating patients with colorectal carcinoma. Current opinion about follow-up, treatment of metastasis, and reasons to revise follow-up practice

    Get PDF
    Objective Follow-up after curative resection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) has been subjected to debate concerning its effectiveness to reduce cancer mortality. Current national and international guidelines advise CEA measurements every 3 months during 3 years after surgery. The common clinical practice and opinion about follow-up for colorectal carcinoma, was evaluated by means of a survey among Dutch general surgeons. Method A web-based survey of follow-up after treatment of CRC was sent to all registered Dutch general surgeons. A reply from 246 surgeons treating patients for colorectal carcinoma in 105 out of 118 hospitals was received (response rate 91%). Questions related to actual follow-up protocol, opinion about serum CEA monitoring, liver and/or lung metastasectomy, and motivation to participate in a new trial concerning follow-up. Results For the majority of surgeons the length of follow-up was influenced by age of the patient (62%) and physical condition (76%) prohibiting hepatic metastasectomy. The generally accepted follow-up protocol consisted of CEA measurements every 3 months in the first year and six-monthly thereafter, and ultrasound examination of the liver every 6 months. Nearly all surgeons (92%) were willing to participate in a new study of follow-up protocol. Conclusion The adherence to national guidelines for the follow-up of colorectal carcinoma is low. The indistinctness about follow-up after curative treatment of colorectal carcinoma also affects clinical practice. Recent advancements in imaging techniques, liver and lung surgery have changed circumstances, which are not yet anticipated upon in current guidelines. Renewal of follow-up based upon scientific evidence is required
    corecore