Age-adjusted Baseline NDI Values: An Analysis of Neck Pain Disability in the General American Population.

Lipson P ，Bansal A ，Leveque JC ，Kumar R ，Fujii T ，Nemani VM ，Louie PK ... -  《-》

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.

Elwenspoek MM ，Thom H ，Sheppard AL ，Keeney E ，O'Donnell R ，Jackson J ，Roadevin C ，Dawson S ，Lane D ，Stubbs J ，Everitt H ，Watson JC ，Hay AD ，Gillett P ，Robins G ，Jones HE ，Mallett S ，Whiting PF ... -  《-》

Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.

Survival estimation for patients with symptomatic skeletal metastases ideally should be made before a type of local treatment has already been determined. Currently available survival prediction tools, however, were generated using data from patients treated either operatively or with local radiation alone, raising concerns about whether they would generalize well to all patients presenting for assessment. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithm (SORG-MLA), trained with institution-based data of surgically treated patients, and the Metastases location, Elderly, Tumor primary, Sex, Sickness/comorbidity, and Site of radiotherapy model (METSSS), trained with registry-based data of patients treated with radiotherapy alone, are two of the most recently developed survival prediction models, but they have not been tested on patients whose local treatment strategy is not yet decided. (1) Which of these two survival prediction models performed better in a mixed cohort made up both of patients who received local treatment with surgery followed by radiotherapy and who had radiation alone for symptomatic bone metastases? (2) Which model performed better among patients whose local treatment consisted of only palliative radiotherapy? (3) Are laboratory values used by SORG-MLA, which are not included in METSSS, independently associated with survival after controlling for predictions made by METSSS? Between 2010 and 2018, we provided local treatment for 2113 adult patients with skeletal metastases in the extremities at an urban tertiary referral academic medical center using one of two strategies: (1) surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy or (2) palliative radiotherapy alone. Every patient's survivorship status was ascertained either by their medical records or the national death registry from the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration. After applying a priori designated exclusion criteria, 91% (1920) were analyzed here. Among them, 48% (920) of the patients were female, and the median (IQR) age was 62 years (53 to 70 years). Lung was the most common primary tumor site (41% [782]), and 59% (1128) of patients had other skeletal metastases in addition to the treated lesion(s). In general, the indications for surgery were the presence of a complete pathologic fracture or an impending pathologic fracture, defined as having a Mirels score of ≥ 9, in patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of less than or equal to IV and who were considered fit for surgery. The indications for radiotherapy were relief of pain, local tumor control, prevention of skeletal-related events, and any combination of the above. In all, 84% (1610) of the patients received palliative radiotherapy alone as local treatment for the target lesion(s), and 16% (310) underwent surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Neither METSSS nor SORG-MLA was used at the point of care to aid clinical decision-making during the treatment period. Survival was retrospectively estimated by these two models to test their potential for providing survival probabilities. We first compared SORG to METSSS in the entire population. Then, we repeated the comparison in patients who received local treatment with palliative radiation alone. We assessed model performance by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration analysis, Brier score, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The AUROC measures discrimination, which is the ability to distinguish patients with the event of interest (such as death at a particular time point) from those without. AUROC typically ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 0.5 indicating random guessing and 1.0 a perfect prediction, and in general, an AUROC of ≥ 0.7 indicates adequate discrimination for clinical use. Calibration refers to the agreement between the predicted outcomes (in this case, survival probabilities) and the actual outcomes, with a perfect calibration curve having an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. A positive intercept indicates that the actual survival is generally underestimated by the prediction model, and a negative intercept suggests the opposite (overestimation). When comparing models, an intercept closer to 0 typically indicates better calibration. Calibration can also be summarized as log(O:E), the logarithm scale of the ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) survivors. A log(O:E) > 0 signals an underestimation (the observed survival is greater than the predicted survival); and a log(O:E) < 0 indicates the opposite (the observed survival is lower than the predicted survival). A model with a log(O:E) closer to 0 is generally considered better calibrated. The Brier score is the mean squared difference between the model predictions and the observed outcomes, and it ranges from 0 (best prediction) to 1 (worst prediction). The Brier score captures both discrimination and calibration, and it is considered a measure of overall model performance. In Brier score analysis, the "null model" assigns a predicted probability equal to the prevalence of the outcome and represents a model that adds no new information. A prediction model should achieve a Brier score at least lower than the null-model Brier score to be considered as useful. The DCA was developed as a method to determine whether using a model to inform treatment decisions would do more good than harm. It plots the net benefit of making decisions based on the model's predictions across all possible risk thresholds (or cost-to-benefit ratios) in relation to the two default strategies of treating all or no patients. The care provider can decide on an acceptable risk threshold for the proposed treatment in an individual and assess the corresponding net benefit to determine whether consulting with the model is superior to adopting the default strategies. Finally, we examined whether laboratory data, which were not included in the METSSS model, would have been independently associated with survival after controlling for the METSSS model's predictions by using the multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Between the two models, only SORG-MLA achieved adequate discrimination (an AUROC of > 0.7) in the entire cohort (of patients treated operatively or with radiation alone) and in the subgroup of patients treated with palliative radiotherapy alone. SORG-MLA outperformed METSSS by a wide margin on discrimination, calibration, and Brier score analyses in not only the entire cohort but also the subgroup of patients whose local treatment consisted of radiotherapy alone. In both the entire cohort and the subgroup, DCA demonstrated that SORG-MLA provided more net benefit compared with the two default strategies (of treating all or no patients) and compared with METSSS when risk thresholds ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 at both 90 days and 1 year, indicating that using SORG-MLA as a decision-making aid was beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting for treatment was 0.2 to 0.9. Higher albumin, lower alkaline phosphatase, lower calcium, higher hemoglobin, lower international normalized ratio, higher lymphocytes, lower neutrophils, lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lower platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, higher sodium, and lower white blood cells were independently associated with better 1-year and overall survival after adjusting for the predictions made by METSSS. Based on these discoveries, clinicians might choose to consult SORG-MLA instead of METSSS for survival estimation in patients with long-bone metastases presenting for evaluation of local treatment. Basing a treatment decision on the predictions of SORG-MLA could be beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting to undergo a particular treatment strategy ranged from 0.2 to 0.9. Future studies might investigate relevant laboratory items when constructing or refining a survival estimation model because these data demonstrated prognostic value independent of the predictions of the METSSS model, and future studies might also seek to keep these models up to date using data from diverse, contemporary patients undergoing both modern operative and nonoperative treatments. Level III, diagnostic study.

Lee CC ，Chen CW ，Yen HK ，Lin YP ，Lai CY ，Wang JL ，Groot OQ ，Janssen SJ ，Schwab JH ，Hsu FM ，Lin WH ... -  《-》

Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.

About 20-30% of older adults (≥ 65 years old) experience one or more falls each year, and falls are associated with substantial burden to the health care system, individuals, and families from resulting injuries, fractures, and reduced functioning and quality of life. Many interventions for preventing falls have been studied, and their effectiveness, factors relevant to their implementation, and patient preferences may determine which interventions to use in primary care. The aim of this set of reviews was to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) on fall prevention interventions. We undertook three systematic reviews to address questions about the following: (i) the benefits and harms of interventions, (ii) how patients weigh the potential outcomes (outcome valuation), and (iii) patient preferences for different types of interventions, and their attributes, shown to offer benefit (intervention preferences). We searched four databases for benefits and harms (MEDLINE, Embase, AgeLine, CENTRAL, to August 25, 2023) and three for outcome valuation and intervention preferences (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, to June 9, 2023). For benefits and harms, we relied heavily on a previous review for studies published until 2016. We also searched trial registries, references of included studies, and recent reviews. Two reviewers independently screened studies. The population of interest was community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years old. We did not limit eligibility by participant fall history. The task force rated several outcomes, decided on their eligibility, and provided input on the effect thresholds to apply for each outcome (fallers, falls, injurious fallers, fractures, hip fractures, functional status, health-related quality of life, long-term care admissions, adverse effects, serious adverse effects). For benefits and harms, we included a broad range of non-pharmacological interventions relevant to primary care. Although usual care was the main comparator of interest, we included studies comparing interventions head-to-head and conducted a network meta-analysis (NMAs) for each outcome, enabling analysis of interventions lacking direct comparisons to usual care. For benefits and harms, we included randomized controlled trials with a minimum 3-month follow-up and reporting on one of our fall outcomes (fallers, falls, injurious fallers); for the other questions, we preferred quantitative data but considered qualitative findings to fill gaps in evidence. No date limits were applied for benefits and harms, whereas for outcome valuation and intervention preferences we included studies published in 2000 or later. All data were extracted by one trained reviewer and verified for accuracy and completeness. For benefits and harms, we relied on the previous review team's risk-of-bias assessments for benefit outcomes, but otherwise, two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias (within and across study). For the other questions, one reviewer verified another's assessments. Consensus was used, with adjudication by a lead author when necessary. A coding framework, modified from the ProFANE taxonomy, classified interventions and their attributes (e.g., supervision, delivery format, duration/intensity). For benefit outcomes, we employed random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach and a consistency model. Transitivity and coherence were assessed using meta-regressions and global and local coherence tests, as well as through graphical display and descriptive data on the composition of the nodes with respect to major pre-planned effect modifiers. We assessed heterogeneity using prediction intervals. For intervention-related adverse effects, we pooled proportions except for vitamin D for which we considered data in the control groups and undertook random-effects pairwise meta-analysis using a relative risk (any adverse effects) or risk difference (serious adverse effects). For outcome valuation, we pooled disutilities (representing the impact of a negative event, e.g. fall, on one's usual quality of life, with 0 = no impact and 1 = death and ~ 0.05 indicating important disutility) from the EQ-5D utility measurement using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model and explored heterogeneity. When studies only reported other data, we compared the findings with our main analysis. For intervention preferences, we used a coding schema identifying whether there were strong, clear, no, or variable preferences within, and then across, studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using CINeMA for benefit outcomes and GRADE for all other outcomes. A total of 290 studies were included across the reviews, with two studies included in multiple questions. For benefits and harms, we included 219 trials reporting on 167,864 participants and created 59 interventions (nodes). Transitivity and coherence were assessed as adequate. Across eight NMAs, the number of contributing trials ranged between 19 and 173, and the number of interventions ranged from 19 to 57. Approximately, half of the interventions in each network had at least low certainty for benefit. The fallers outcome had the highest number of interventions with moderate certainty for benefit (18/57). For the non-fall outcomes (fractures, hip fracture, long-term care [LTC] admission, functional status, health-related quality of life), many interventions had very low certainty evidence, often from lack of data. We prioritized findings from 21 interventions where there was moderate certainty for at least some benefit. Fourteen of these had a focus on exercise, the majority being supervised (for > 2 sessions) and of long duration (> 3 months), and with balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions generally having the most outcomes with at least low certainty for benefit. None of the interventions having moderate certainty evidence focused on walking. Whole-body vibration or home-hazard assessment (HHA) plus exercise provided to everyone showed moderate certainty for some benefit. No multifactorial intervention alone showed moderate certainty for any benefit. Six interventions only had very-low certainty evidence for the benefit outcomes. Two interventions had moderate certainty of harmful effects for at least one benefit outcome, though the populations across studies were at high risk for falls. Vitamin D and most single-component exercise interventions are probably associated with minimal adverse effects. Some uncertainty exists about possible adverse effects from other interventions. For outcome valuation, we included 44 studies of which 34 reported EQ-5D disutilities. Admission to long-term care had the highest disutility (1.0), but the evidence was rated as low certainty. Both fall-related hip (moderate certainty) and non-hip (low certainty) fracture may result in substantial disutility (0.53 and 0.57) in the first 3 months after injury. Disutility for both hip and non-hip fractures is probably lower 12 months after injury (0.16 and 0.19, with high and moderate certainty, respectively) compared to within the first 3 months. No study measured the disutility of an injurious fall. Fractures are probably more important than either falls (0.09 over 12 months) or functional status (0.12). Functional status may be somewhat more important than falls. For intervention preferences, 29 studies (9 qualitative) reported on 17 comparisons among single-component interventions showing benefit. Exercise interventions focusing on balance and/or resistance training appear to be clearly preferred over Tai Chi and other forms of exercise (e.g., yoga, aerobic). For exercise programs in general, there is probably variability among people in whether they prefer group or individual delivery, though there was high certainty that individual was preferred over group delivery of balance/resistance programs. Balance/resistance exercise may be preferred over education, though the evidence was low certainty. There was low certainty for a slight preference for education over cognitive-behavioral therapy, and group education may be preferred over individual education. To prevent falls among community-dwelling older adults, evidence is most certain for benefit, at least over 1-2 years, from supervised, long-duration balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions, whole-body vibration, high-intensity/dose education or cognitive-behavioral therapy, and interventions of comprehensive multifactorial assessment with targeted treatment plus HHA, HHA plus exercise, or education provided to everyone. Adding other interventions to exercise does not appear to substantially increase benefits. Overall, effects appear most applicable to those with elevated fall risk. Choice among effective interventions that are available may best depend on individual patient preferences, though when implementing new balance/resistance programs delivering individual over group sessions when feasible may be most acceptable. Data on more patient-important outcomes including fall-related fractures and adverse effects would be beneficial, as would studies focusing on equity-deserving populations and on programs delivered virtually. Not registered.

Pillay J ，Gaudet LA ，Saba S ，Vandermeer B ，Ashiq AR ，Wingert A ，Hartling L ... -  《Systematic Reviews》

The burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors by state in the USA, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 provides a comprehensive assessment of health and risk factor trends at global, regional, national, and subnational levels. This study aims to examine the burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors in the USA and highlight the disparities in health outcomes across different states. GBD 2021 analysed trends in mortality, morbidity, and disability for 371 diseases and injuries and 88 risk factors in the USA between 1990 and 2021. We used several metrics to report sources of health and health loss related to specific diseases, injuries, and risk factors. GBD 2021 methods accounted for differences in data sources and biases. The analysis of levels and trends for causes and risk factors within the same computational framework enabled comparisons across states, years, age groups, and sex. GBD 2021 estimated years lived with disability (YLDs) and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; the sum of years of life lost to premature mortality and YLDs) for 371 diseases and injuries, years of life lost (YLLs) and mortality for 288 causes of death, and life expectancy and healthy life expectancy (HALE). We provided estimates for 88 risk factors in relation to 155 health outcomes for 631 risk-outcome pairs and produced risk-specific estimates of summary exposure value, relative health risk, population attributable fraction, and risk-attributable burden measured in DALYs and deaths. Estimates were produced by sex (male and female), age (25 age groups from birth to ≥95 years), and year (annually between 1990 and 2021). 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated for all final estimates as the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles values of 500 draws (ie, 500 random samples from the estimate's distribution). Uncertainty was propagated at each step of the estimation process. We found disparities in health outcomes and risk factors across US states. Our analysis of GBD 2021 highlighted the relative decline in life expectancy and HALE compared with other countries, as well as the impact of COVID-19 during the first 2 years of the pandemic. We found a decline in the USA's ranking of life expectancy from 1990 to 2021: in 1990, the USA ranked 35th of 204 countries and territories for males and 19th for females, but dropped to 46th for males and 47th for females in 2021. When comparing life expectancy in the best-performing and worst-performing US states against all 203 other countries and territories (excluding the USA as a whole), Hawaii (the best-ranked state in 1990 and 2021) dropped from sixth-highest life expectancy in the world for males and fourth for females in 1990 to 28th for males and 22nd for females in 2021. The worst-ranked state in 2021 ranked 107th for males (Mississippi) and 99th for females (West Virginia). 14 US states lost life expectancy over the study period, with West Virginia experiencing the greatest loss (2·7 years between 1990 and 2021). HALE ranking declines were even greater; in 1990, the USA was ranked 42nd for males and 32nd for females but dropped to 69th for males and 76th for females in 2021. When comparing HALE in the best-performing and worst-performing US states against all 203 other countries and territories, Hawaii ranked 14th highest HALE for males and fifth for females in 1990, dropping to 39th for males and 34th for females in 2021. In 2021, West Virginia-the lowest-ranked state that year-ranked 141st for males and 137th for females. Nationally, age-standardised mortality rates declined between 1990 and 2021 for many leading causes of death, most notably for ischaemic heart disease (56·1% [95% UI 55·1-57·2] decline), lung cancer (41·9% [39·7-44·6]), and breast cancer (40·9% [38·7-43·7]). Over the same period, age-standardised mortality rates increased for other causes, particularly drug use disorders (878·0% [770·1-1015·5]), chronic kidney disease (158·3% [149·6-167·9]), and falls (89·7% [79·8-95·8]). We found substantial variation in mortality rates between states, with Hawaii having the lowest age-standardised mortality rate (433·2 per 100 000 [380·6-493·4]) in 2021 and Mississippi having the highest (867·5 per 100 000 [772·6-975·7]). Hawaii had the lowest age-standardised mortality rates throughout the study period, whereas Washington, DC, experienced the most improvement (a 40·7% decline [33·2-47·3]). Only six countries had age-standardised rates of YLDs higher than the USA in 2021: Afghanistan, Lesotho, Liberia, Mozambique, South Africa, and the Central African Republic, largely because the impact of musculoskeletal disorders, mental disorders, and substance use disorders on age-standardised disability rates in the USA is so large. At the state level, eight US states had higher age-standardised YLD rates than any country in the world: West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, and Arizona. Low back pain was the leading cause of YLDs in the USA in 1990 and 2021, although the age-standardised rate declined by 7·9% (1·8-13·0) from 1990. Depressive disorders (56·0% increase [48·2-64·3]) and drug use disorders (287·6% [247·9-329·8]) were the second-leading and third-leading causes of age-standardised YLDs in 2021. For females, mental health disorders had the highest age-standardised YLD rate, with an increase of 59·8% (50·6-68·5) between 1990 and 2021. Hawaii had the lowest age-standardised rates of YLDs for all sexes combined (12 085·3 per 100 000 [9090·8-15 557·1]), whereas West Virginia had the highest (14 832·9 per 100 000 [11 226·9-18 882·5]). At the national level, the leading GBD Level 2 risk factors for death for all sexes combined in 2021 were high systolic blood pressure, high fasting plasma glucose, and tobacco use. From 1990 to 2021, the age-standardised mortality rates attributable to high systolic blood pressure decreased by 47·8% (43·4-52·5) and for tobacco use by 5·1% (48·3%-54·1%), but rates increased for high fasting plasma glucose by 9·3% (0·4-18·7). The burden attributable to risk factors varied by age and sex. For example, for ages 15-49 years, the leading risk factors for death were drug use, high alcohol use, and dietary risks. By comparison, for ages 50-69 years, tobacco was the leading risk factor for death, followed by dietary risks and high BMI. GBD 2021 provides valuable information for policy makers, health-care professionals, and researchers in the USA at the national and state levels to prioritise interventions, allocate resources effectively, and assess the effects of health policies and programmes. By addressing socioeconomic determinants, risk behaviours, environmental influences, and health disparities among minority populations, the USA can work towards improving health outcomes so that people can live longer and healthier lives. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

GBD 2021 US Burden of Disease Collaborators 《-》