Search

Study Question: How many twins are born in human populations and how has this changed over recent decades?Summary Answer: Since the 1980s, the global twinning rate has increased by a third, from 9.1 to 12.0 twin deliveries per 1000 deliveries, to about 1.6 million twin pairs each year.What Is Known Already: It was already known that in the 1980s natural twinning rates were low in (East) Asia and South America, at an intermediate level in Europe and North America, and high in many African countries. It was also known that in recent decades, twinning rates have been increasing in the wealthier parts of our world as a result of the rise in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) and delayed childbearing.Study Design, Size, Duration: We have brought together all information on national twinning rates available from statistical offices, demographic research institutes, individual survey data and the medical literature for the 1980-1985 and the 2010-2015 periods.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: For 165 countries, covering over 99% of the global population, we were able to collect or estimate twinning rates for the 2010-2015 period. For 112 countries, we were also able to obtain twinning rates for 1980-1985.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: Substantial increases in twinning rates were observed in many countries in Europe, North America and Asia. For 74 out of 112 countries the increase was more than 10%. Africa is still the continent with highest twinning rates, but Europe, North America and Oceania are catching up rapidly. Asia and Africa are currently home to 80% of all twin deliveries in the world.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: For some countries, data were derived from reports and papers based on hospital registrations which are less representative for the country as a whole than data based on public administrations and national surveys.Wider Implications Of the Findings: The absolute and relative number of twins for the world as a whole is peaking at an unprecedented level. An important reason for this is the tremendous increase in medically assisted reproduction in recent decades. This is highly relevant, as twin deliveries are associated with higher infant and child mortality rates and increased complications for mother and child during pregnancy and during and after delivery.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The contribution of CM was partially supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant No 681546, FAMSIZEMATTERS), Nuffield College, and the Leverhulme Trust. The contribution of GP was partially supported by the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche (grant No ANR-18-CE36-0007-07). The authors declare no conflict of interest.Trial Registration Number: N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tier 1 exposure tools recommended for use under REACH are designed to easily identify situations that may pose a risk to health through conservative exposure predictions. However, no comprehensive evaluation of the performance of the lower tier tools has previously been carried out. The ETEAM project aimed to evaluate several lower tier exposure tools (ECETOC TRA, MEASE, and EMKG-EXPO-TOOL) as well as one higher tier tool (STOFFENMANAGER®). This paper describes the results of the external validation of tool estimates using measurement data. Methods: Measurement data were collected from a range of providers, both in Europe and United States, together with contextual information. Individual measurement and aggregated measurement data were obtained. The contextual information was coded into the tools to obtain exposure estimates. Results were expressed as percentage of measurements exceeding the tool estimates and presented by exposure category (non-volatile liquid, volatile liquid, metal abrasion, metal processing, and powder handling). We also explored tool performance for different process activities as well as different scenario conditions and exposure levels. Results: In total, results from nearly 4000 measurements were obtained, with the majority for the use of volatile liquids and powder handling. The comparisons of measurement results with tool estimates suggest that the tools are generally conservative. However, the tools were more conservative when estimating exposure from powder handling compared to volatile liquids and other exposure categories. In addition, results suggested that tool performance varies between process activities and scenario conditions. For example, tools were less conservative when estimating exposure during activities involving tabletting, compression, extrusion, pelletisation, granulation (common process activity PROC14) and transfer of substance or mixture (charging and discharging) at nondedicated facilities (PROC8a; powder handling only). With the exception of STOFFENMANAGER® (for estimating exposure during powder handling), the tools were less conservative for scenarios with lower estimated exposure levels. Conclusions: This is the most comprehensive evaluation of the performance of REACH exposure tools carried out to date. The results show that, although generally conservative, the tools may not always achieve the performance specified in the REACH guidance, i.e. using the 75th or 90th percentile of the exposure distribution for the risk characterisation. Ongoing development, adjustment, and recalibration of the tools with new measurement data are essential to ensure adequate characterisation and control of worker exposure to hazardous substances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Group has developed a new multidimensional instrument measuring cancer-related fatigue to be used in conjunction with the quality of life core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). The module EORTC QLQ-FA13 assesses physical, cognitive, and emotional aspects of cancer-related fatigue.Methods: The methodology follows the EORTC guidelines for phase IV validation of modules. This paper focuses on the results of the psychometric validation of the factorial structure of the module. For validation and cross-validation confirmatory factor analysis (maximum likelihood estimation), intraclass correlation and Cronbach alpha for internal consistency were employed. The study involved an international multicenter collaboration of 11 European and non-European countries.Results: A total of 946 patients with various tumor diagnoses were enrolled. Based on the confirmatory factor analysis, we could approve the three-dimensional structure of the module. Removing one item and reassigning the factorial mapping of another item resulted in the EORTC QLQ-FA12. For the revised scale, we found evidence supporting good local (indicator reliability ≥ 0.60, factor reliability ≥ 0.82) and global model fit (GFI t1|t2 = 0.965/0.957, CFI t1|t2 = 0.976/0.972, RMSEA t1|t2 = 0.060/0.069) for both measurement points. For each scale, test-retest reliability proved to be very good (intraclass correlation: R t1-t2 = 0.905-0.921) and internal consistency proved to be good to high (Cronbach alpha = .79-.90).Conclusion: Based on the former phase III module, the multidimensional structure was revised as a phase IV module (EORTC FA12) with an improved scale structure. For a comprehensive validation of the EORTC FA12, further aspects of convergent and divergent validity as well as sensitivity to change should be determined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]