Data Resource Profile: The World Health Organization Study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE)

Population ageing is rapidly becoming a global issue and will have a major impact on health policies and programmes. The World Health Organization's Study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE) aims to address the gap in reliable data and scientific knowledge on ageing and health in low- and middle-income countries. SAGE is a longitudinal study with nationally representative samples of persons aged 50+ years in China, Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia and South Africa, with a smaller sample of adults aged 18-49 years in each country for comparisons. Instruments are compatible with other large high-income country longitudinal ageing studies. Wave 1 was conducted during 2007-2010 and included a total of 34 124 respondents aged 50+ and 8340 aged 18-49. In four countries, a subsample consisting of 8160 respondents participated in Wave 1 and the 2002/04 World Health Survey (referred to as SAGE Wave 0). Wave 2 data collection will start in 2012/13, following up all Wave 1 respondents. Wave 3 is planned for 2014/15. SAGE is committed to the public release of study instruments, protocols and meta- and micro-data: access is provided upon completion of a Users Agreement available through WHO's SAGE website (www.who.int/healthinfo/systems/sage) and WHO's archive using the National Data Archive application (http://apps.who.int/healthinfo/systems/surveydata

Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge 2 \u201cFood Security, Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry, Marine, Maritime and Inland Water Research, and the Bioeconomy\u201d Advisory Group Recommendations Programming Period 2018-2020

The Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge 2 Programme was created to develop and implement an EU research and innovation policy for more sustainable and resource efficient agriculture, forestry, inland water and marine systems that supply European society with sufficient food, feed, biomass, and other raw materials, as well as ecosystems services, and support thriving rural and coastal livelihoods. The European Commission has established Societal Challenge Advisory Groups to provide consistent and consolidated advice - by way of opinions, recommendations and reports - on relevant research objectives and scientific, technological and innovation priorities for its strategic and annual work programmes. Our Societal Challenge 2 Advisory Group includes a wide range of members with remarkably rich and diverse backgrounds and affiliations, including researchers, academics, former policymakers - stakeholders covering the whole spectrum of relevant research and innovation domains. Our Advisory Group has met twice formally since our establishment in February 2016, and has used other opportunities for extensive discussion and engagement on the issues surrounding this Societal Challenge. We see Societal Challenge 2 as not only extremely important as a challenge in itself, but also strongly linked with other Societal Challenges such as health, demographic change and wellbeing, climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials, and inclusive, innovative and reflective societies in a changing world. And as the agriculture, forestry, fisheries and food sectors comprise a very large number of smaller businesses \u2013 themselves serving large scale processing and retail business sectors \u2013 there are strong links between our contribution and the input of groups advising on innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises, international cooperation, nanotechnologies, advanced materials and advanced manufacturing and processing. Our Advisory Group\u2018s first task has been to prepare this report to answer five specific questions posed by the Commission and provide input into the strategic programming cycle of the Work Programme for 2018-2020. We have identified some overriding strategic priorities, and backed those with the results of a more detailed analysis of the gaps that need to be addressed. And we highlight the cross-cutting nature of this programme and the importance of an integrated approach to maximise the overall impact of the current Horizon 2020 programme. We hope that the insights in this report may also assist in the identification and prioritisation of research needs and strengthen the Commission\u2018s strategic and impact-oriented approach in future years

Early mobilisation in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a subanalysis of the ESICM-initiated UNITE-COVID observational study

Background Early mobilisation (EM) is an intervention that may improve the outcome of critically ill patients. There is limited data on EM in COVID-19 patients and its use during the first pandemic wave. Methods This is a pre-planned subanalysis of the ESICM UNITE-COVID, an international multicenter observational study involving critically ill COVID-19 patients in the ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020. We analysed variables associated with the initiation of EM (within 72 h of ICU admission) and explored the impact of EM on mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, as well as discharge location. Statistical analyses were done using (generalised) linear mixed-effect models and ANOVAs. Results Mobilisation data from 4190 patients from 280 ICUs in 45 countries were analysed. 1114 (26.6%) of these patients received mobilisation within 72 h after ICU admission; 3076 (73.4%) did not. In our analysis of factors associated with EM, mechanical ventilation at admission (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.25, 0.35; p = 0.001), higher age (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98, 1.00; p ≤ 0.001), pre-existing asthma (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73, 0.98; p = 0.028), and pre-existing kidney disease (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.71, 0.99; p = 0.036) were negatively associated with the initiation of EM. EM was associated with a higher chance of being discharged home (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.08, 1.58; p = 0.007) but was not associated with length of stay in ICU (adj. difference 0.91 days; 95% CI − 0.47, 1.37, p = 0.34) and hospital (adj. difference 1.4 days; 95% CI − 0.62, 2.35, p = 0.24) or mortality (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.7, 1.09, p = 0.24) when adjusted for covariates. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that a quarter of COVID-19 patients received EM. There was no association found between EM in COVID-19 patients' ICU and hospital length of stay or mortality. However, EM in COVID-19 patients was associated with increased odds of being discharged home rather than to a care facility. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04836065 (retrospectively registered April 8th 2021)

Use of 223 Ra and 224 Ra as chronometers to estimate the residence time of Amazon waters on the Brazilian continental shelf

International audienc

Drugs and pacemakers for vasovagal, carotid sinus and situational syncope

Background Neurally mediated reflex syncope is the most common cause of transient loss of consciousness. In patients not responding to nonpharmacological treatment, pharmacological or pacemaker treatment might be considered. Objectives To examine the effects of pharmacological therapy and pacemaker implantation in patients with vasovagal syncope, carotid sinus syncope and situational syncope. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2008), PubMed (1950 until February 2008), EMBASE on OVID (1980 until February 2008) and CINAHL on EBSCOhost (1937 until February 2008). No language restrictions were applied. Selection criteria We included parallel randomized controlled trials and randomized cross-over trials of pharmacological treatment (beta-blockers, fludrocortisone, alpha-adrenergic agonists, selective serotonine reuptake inhibitors, ACE inhibitors, disopyramide, anticholinergic agents or salt tablets) or dual chamber pacemaker treatment. Studies were included if pharmacological or pacemaker treatment was compared with any form of standardised control treatment (standard treatment), placebo treatment, or (other) pharmacological or pacemaker treatment. We did not include non-randomized studies. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias. Using a standardised data extraction form, they extracted characteristics and results of the various studies. In a consensus meeting they discussed any disagreements that had occurred during data extraction. If no agreement could be reached, a third reviewer was asked to make a decision. Summary estimates with 95% confidence intervals of treatment effect were calculated using relative risks, rate ratios or weighted means differences depending on the type of outcome reported. Main results We included 46 randomized studies, 40 on vasovagal syncope and six on carotid sinus syncope. No studies on situational syncope matched the criteria for inclusion in our review. Studies in general were small with a median sample size of 42. A wide range of control treatments were used with 22 studies using a placebo arm. Blinding of patients and treating physicians was applied in eight studies. Results varied considerably between studies and between types of outcomes. For vasovagal syncope, the occurrence of syncope upon provocational head-up tilt testing was lower upon treatment with beta-blockers, ACE-inhibitors and anticholinergic agents compared to standard treatment. For carotid sinus syncope, the occurrence of syncope upon carotid sinus massage was lower on midodrine treatment compared to placebo treatment in one study. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence to support the use of any of the pharmacological or pacemaker treatments for vasovagal syncope and carotid sinus syncope. Larger studies using patient relevant outcomes are neede