Search

• Debates regarding single versus bilateral lung transplants for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease continue. • Data from more than 10,000 patients between 1989 and 2014 were analyzed. • Single lung transplants result in greater postoperative complications. • Bilateral lung transplants have a lower risk of death than single lung transplants. • Bilateral transplants have better survival rates at 1, 5, and 10 years post-transplantation. Lung transplantation is recommended for select patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, a consensus has not been reached regarding the optimal choice of lung transplantation: single lung transplants (SLTs) vs bilateral lung transplants (BLTs). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SLT compared with BLT in managing end-stage COPD. Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus were searched for articles by 2 independent reviewers using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis system. The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42022343408). Seven studies of 311 screened met the eligibility criteria, with a total of 10,652 patients with end-stage COPD, SLT (n = 6233), or BLT (n = 4419). Overall survival rates of BLT group were more favorable than SLT group at 1 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.16, 1.43, I2 = 0%), 5 (OR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.35, 1.58, I2 = 23%), and 10 years (OR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.57, 1.87, I2 = 12%) as well as the hazard ratio (HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.70, 0.76, I2 = 40%). Subgroup analysis on survival rates of alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency also displayed a trend favoring BLT compared with SLT at 1 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.24, 2.08, I2 = 28%), 5 (OR = 1.84, 95% CI: 1.50, 2.26, I2 = 42%), and 10 years (OR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.59, 2.48, I2 = 47%) as well as the HR (HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.35, 1.28, I2 = 82%). Compared with SLT, BLT seems to demonstrate more favorable trends in survival rates for the management of end-stage COPD. Despite the promising results, the groups have significant heterogeneity in baseline characteristics. Further prospective studies with extended follow-up periods are needed to ascertain the efficacy of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Review of state legal text to characterize release of driver license and crash data. • 37 states and D.C. authorize release of individual-level licensing data. • Disconnect between authorized release of licensing data and limited use in research. • Largely unclear if individual-level crash data is accessible in existing statutes. Identifiable individual-level driver licensing and motor vehicle crash data are essential to advancing transportation safety research. However, epidemiologic studies using such data are rare, which may reflect their inaccessibility. We conducted a legal mapping study to evaluate US state laws regulating access to driver licensing and motor vehicle crash data for use in scientific research. Legal statutes regulating the release of driver licensing and motor vehicle crash data for all 50 US states and the District of Columbia (D.C.) were retrieved. Legal text was evaluated to determine whether these jurisdictions authorize release of identifiable individual-level licensing and crash data for use in non-governmental research. Thirty-six states and D.C. explicitly authorize release of identifiable individual-level licensing data to researchers. Only five states and D.C. authorize release of identifiable individual-level crash records. No states explicitly prohibit the release of individual-level data about licensing records and only three states prohibit release of individual-level crash record data, meaning that in many states it is ambiguous whether and when releasing such data to researchers is permitted. It is important to understand why licensing data are not used more frequently in transportation safety research given that many state laws permit access for non-governmental researchers. Reforming state laws to clarify and increase access to identifiable individual-level crash report data is an important priority for transportation safety advocates and researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]