American journal of epidemiology
-
The spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is causing an unprecedented crisis around the world, with South Korea being no exception. South Korea experienced a surge of COVID-19 cases on February 19, 2020, but was able to flatten the COVID-19 curve in only 20 days without enforcing lockdown measures that restrict the freedom and movement of people. The actual field experience of the Korean government's COVID-19 response team, who participated in drafting the document "Tackling COVID-19: Health, Quarantine, and Economic Measures: Korean experience," was examined and an in-depth analysis was conducted of the South Korean government's experience dealing with the Middle East respiratory syndrome of 2015. ⋯ Second, a novel approach was needed to combat COVID-19 spread. Information and communication technology had a key role in South Korea's strategy to contain COVID-19. Third, an effective response to COVID-19 was possible due to the successful partnership between the general public and state authorities.
-
Health-care workers (HCWs) are at the frontline of response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), being at a higher risk of acquiring the disease and, subsequently, exposing patients and others. Searches of 8 bibliographic databases were performed to systematically review the evidence on the prevalence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and prognosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among HCWs. A total of 97 studies (all published in 2020) met the inclusion criteria. ⋯ Among HCWs positive for COVID-19 by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, 40% (95% CI: 17, 65) were asymptomatic at time of diagnosis. Finally, severe clinical complications developed in 5% (95% CI: 3, 8) of the COVID-19-positive HCWs, and 0.5% (95% CI: 0.02, 1.3) died. Health-care workers suffer a significant burden from COVID-19, with those working in hospital nonemergency wards and nurses being the most commonly infected personnel.
-
We live in the era of genomics and big data. Evaluating the impact on health of large-scale biological, social, and environmental data is an emerging challenge in the field of epidemiology. In the past 3 years, major discussions and plans for the future of epidemiology, including with several recommendations for actions to transform the field, have been launched by 2 institutes within the National Institutes of Health. ⋯ Ongoing engagement within the epidemiology community is needed to determine how to shape the evolution of the field and what truly matters for changing population health. We also need to assess how to leverage existing epidemiology resources and develop new studies to improve human health. Readers are invited to examine these recommendations, consider others that might be important, and join in the conversation about the future of epidemiology.
-
Evidence from genetic association studies is accumulating rapidly. Field synopses have recently arisen as an unbiased way of systematically synthesizing this evidence. We performed a systematic review and appraisal of published field synopses in genetic epidemiology and assessed their main findings and methodological characteristics. ⋯ These synopses received more citations (P = 0.01) and needed a larger research team (P = 0.02) than synopses without an online database. Overall, field synopses are becoming a valuable tool for the identification of common genetic variants, especially when researchers follow relevant methodological guidelines. Our work provides a summary of the current status of the field synopses published to date and may help interested readers efficiently identify the online resources containing the relevant genetic evidence.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Red meat and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis.
High consumption of red meat and processed meat has been associated with increased risk of several chronic diseases. We conducted a meta-analysis to summarize the evidence from prospective studies on red meat and processed meat consumption in relationship to all-cause mortality. Pertinent studies were identified by searching PubMed through May 2013 and by reviewing the reference lists of retrieved articles. ⋯ The summary relative risks of all-cause mortality for the highest versus the lowest category of consumption were 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98, 1.22; n = 6 studies) for unprocessed red meat, 1.23 (95% CI: 1.17, 1.28; n = 6 studies) for processed meat, and 1.29 (95% CI: 1.24, 1.35; n = 5 studies) for total red meat. In a dose-response meta-analysis, consumption of processed meat and total red meat, but not unprocessed red meat, was statistically significantly positively associated with all-cause mortality in a nonlinear fashion. These results indicate that high consumption of red meat, especially processed meat, may increase all-cause mortality.