Acceptance of mHealth among health professionals : a case study on anesthesia practitioners

No external funding was obtained for the present study. Internal (within-hospital) support has been received from the Willy Gepts scientific fund.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Forty years of neuromuscular monitoring and postoperative residual curarisation : a meta-analysis and evaluation of confidence in network meta-analysis

Funding: Willy Gepts (Univeristair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium).Peer reviewedPostprin

Assessment of exposure determinants and exposure levels by using stationary concentration measurements and a probabilistic near-field/far-field exposure model

Funding Information: The authors thank Prof. Paul Hewett (Exposure Assessment Solutions, Inc., Morgantown, WV) for his assistance with revising the probabilistic exposure model parametrization and interpretation of the results. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Koivisto AJ et al.Background: The Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation requires the establishment of Conditions of Use (CoU) for all exposure scenarios to ensure good communication of safe working practices. Setting CoU requires the risk assessment of all relevant Contributing Scenarios (CSs) in the exposure scenario. A new CS has to be created whenever an Operational Condition (OC) is changed, resulting in an excessive number of exposure assessments. An efficient solution is to quantify OC concentrations and to identify reasonable worst-case scenarios with probabilistic exposure modeling. Methods: Here, we appoint CoU for powder pouring during the industrial manufacturing of a paint batch by quantifying OC exposure levels and exposure determinants. The quantification was performed by using stationary measurements and a probabilistic Near-Field/Far-Field (NF/FF) exposure model. Work shift and OC concentration levels were quantified for pouring TiO 2 from big bags and small bags, pouring Micro Mica from small bags, and cleaning. The impact of exposure determinants on NF concentration level was quantified by (1) assessing exposure determinants correlation with the NF exposure level and (2) by performing simulations with different OCs. Results: Emission rate, air mixing between NF and FF and local ventilation were the most relevant exposure determinants affecting NF concentrations. Potentially risky OCs were identified by performing Reasonable Worst Case (RWC) simulations and by comparing the exposure 95 th percentile distribution with 10% of the occupational exposure limit value (OELV). The CS was shown safe except in RWC scenario (ventilation rate from 0.4 to 1.6 1/h, 100 m 3 room, no local ventilation, and NF ventilation of 1.6 m 3/min). Conclusions: The CoU assessment was considered to comply with European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) legislation and EN 689 exposure assessment strategy for testing compliance with OEL values. One RWC scenario would require measurements since the exposure level was 12.5% of the OELV.Peer reviewe

GRFS and CRFS in alternative donor hematopoietic cell transplantation for pediatric patients with acute leukemia.

We report graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)-free relapse-free survival (GRFS) (a composite end point of survival without grade III-IV acute GVHD [aGVHD], systemic therapy-requiring chronic GVHD [cGVHD], or relapse) and cGVHD-free relapse-free survival (CRFS) among pediatric patients with acute leukemia (n = 1613) who underwent transplantation with 1 antigen-mismatched (7/8) bone marrow (BM; n = 172) or umbilical cord blood (UCB; n = 1441). Multivariate analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazards models. To account for multiple testing, P \u3c .01 for the donor/graft variable was considered statistically significant. Clinical characteristics were similar between UCB and 7/8 BM recipients, because most had acute lymphoblastic leukemia (62%), 64% received total body irradiation-based conditioning, and 60% received anti-thymocyte globulin or alemtuzumab. Methotrexate-based GVHD prophylaxis was more common with 7/8 BM (79%) than with UCB (15%), in which mycophenolate mofetil was commonly used. The univariate estimates of GRFS and CRFS were 22% (95% confidence interval [CI], 16-29) and 27% (95% CI, 20-34), respectively, with 7/8 BM and 33% (95% CI, 31-36) and 38% (95% CI, 35-40), respectively, with UCB (P \u3c .001). In multivariate analysis, 7/8 BM vs UCB had similar GRFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.12; 95% CI, 0.87-1.45; P = .39), CRFS (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82-1.38; P = .66), overall survival (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.80-1.44; P = .66), and relapse (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.03-2.02; P = .03). However, the 7/8 BM group had a significantly higher risk for grade III-IV aGVHD (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.16-2.48; P = .006) compared with the UCB group. UCB and 7/8 BM groups had similar outcomes, as measured by GRFS and CRFS. However, given the higher risk for grade III-IV aGVHD, UCB might be preferred for patients lacking matched donors. © 2019 American Society of Hematology. All rights reserved