Search

Mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 has declined over the course of the pandemic. Mortality trends specifically in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) are unknown. Using data from a multicenter registry of SOTR hospitalized for COVID-19, we compared 28-day mortality between early 2020 (March 1, 2020-June 19, 2020) and late 2020 (June 20, 2020-December 31, 2020). Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess comorbidity-adjusted mortality. Time period of diagnosis was available for 1435/1616 (88.8%) SOTR and 971/1435 (67.7%) were hospitalized: 571/753 (75.8%) in early 2020 and 402/682 (58.9%) in late 2020 (p&nbsp

Heatwaves cause excess mortality and physiological impacts on humans throughout the world, and climate change will intensify and increase the frequency of heat events. Many adaptation and mitigation studies use spatial distribution of highly vulnerable local populations to inform heat reduction and response plans. However, most available heat vulnerability studies focus on urban areas with high heat intensification by Urban Heat Islands (UHIs). Rural areas encompass different environmental and socioeconomic issues that require alternate analyses of vulnerability. We categorized Nebraska census tracts into four urbanization levels, then conducted factor analyses on each group and captured different patterns of socioeconomic vulnerabilities among resultant Heat Vulnerability Indices (HVIs). While disability is the major component of HVI in two urbanized classes, lower education, and races other than white have higher contributions in HVI for the two rural classes. To account for environmental vulnerability of HVI, we considered different land type combinations for each urban class based on their percentage areas and their differences in heat intensifications. Our results demonstrate different combinations of initial variables in heat vulnerability among urban classes of Nebraska and clustering of high and low heat vulnerable areas within the highest urbanized sections. Less urbanized areas show no spatial clustering of HVI. More studies with separation on urbanization level of residence can give insights into different socioeconomic vulnerability patterns in rural and urban areas, while also identifying changes in environmental variables that better capture heat intensification in rural settings., Key Points Despite similar incidence rates, Heat Vulnerability Index (HVI) in rural areas is under studied in comparison to urban areasThe environmental vulnerability variables in rural areas are dissimilar to urban areas, so we applied different variables to calculate themWe found different organization of socioeconomic variables in calculated HVIs, suggesting separate heat strategies for urbanization levels

BACKGROUND AND AIM: We investigated whether the relationship between recent aridity and mortality might be different according to demographic subgroups in South Africa over 1997-2013. METHODS: DESI...

Objectives\ud \ud Selectively reported results from only well-performing cutoffs in diagnostic accuracy studies may bias estimates in meta-analyses. We investigated cutoff reporting patterns for the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9; standard cutoff 10) and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS; no standard cutoff, commonly used 10–13) and compared accuracy estimates based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud We conducted bivariate random effects meta-analyses using individual participant data to compare accuracy from published versus all cutoffs.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud For the PHQ-9 (30 studies, N = 11,773), published results underestimated sensitivity for cutoffs below 10 (median difference: −0.06) and overestimated for cutoffs above 10 (median difference: 0.07). EPDS (19 studies, N = 3637) sensitivity estimates from published results were similar for cutoffs below 10 (median difference: 0.00) but higher for cutoffs above 13 (median difference: 0.14). Specificity estimates from published and all cutoffs were similar for both tools. The mean cutoff of all reported cutoffs in PHQ-9 studies with optimal cutoff below 10 was 8.8 compared to 11.8 for those with optimal cutoffs above 10. Mean for EPDS studies with optimal cutoffs below 10 was 9.9 compared to 11.8 for those with optimal cutoffs greater than 10.\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud Selective cutoff reporting was more pronounced for the PHQ-9 than EPDS.

This study was conducted to examine, at the county level, the relationship between pediatric cancer incidence rate and atrazine and nitrate mean concentrations in surface and groundwater. A negative binomial regression analysis was performed to investigate the association between central nervous system (CNS) tumors, leukemia, lymphoma, and atrazine and nitrate mean concentrations in groundwater. The age-adjusted brain and other CNS cancer incidence was higher than the national average in 63% of the Nebraska counties. After controlling for the counties socio-economic status and nitrate concentrations in groundwater, counties with groundwater atrazine concentrations above 0.0002 µg/L had a higher incidence rate for pediatric cancers (brain and other CNS, leukemia, and lymphoma) compared to counties with groundwater atrazine concentrations in the reference group (0.0000–0.0002 µg/L). Additionally, compared to counties with groundwater nitrate concentrations between 0 and 2 mg/L (reference group), counties with groundwater nitrate concentrations between 2.1 and 5 mg/L (group 2) had a higher incidence rate for pediatric brain and other CNS cancers (IRR = 8.39; 95% CI: 8.24–8.54), leukemia (IRR = 7.35; 95% CI: 7.22–7.48), and lymphoma (IRR = 5.59; CI: 5.48–5.69) after adjusting for atrazine groundwater concentration and the county socio-economic status. While these findings do not indicate a causal relationship, because other contaminants or cancer risk factors have not been accounted for, they suggest that atrazine and nitrate may pose a risk relative to the genesis of pediatric brain and CNS cancers, leukemia, and lymphoma.

In epidemiologic surveillance, counts of health outcomes are often censored in order to protect privacy when the number occurring in specific times and places is small. Several common approaches modeling such censored, hierarchically structured, over-dispersed count data neglect either the uncertainty in true counts from the censoring process or the hierarchical structure of the spatiotemporally clustered surveillance data. In this simulation study, we contrasted the performance of mixed-effects interval-censored negative binomial regression against three alternative approaches to illustrate how the extent of censoring, between-cluster variation, sample size, and true strength of association can affect model estimates, in the context of structured datasets where small nonzero counts may be censored. We assessed bias in parameter estimates and standard errors, 95% confidence interval coverage, statistical power, and type I error rates with simulated data. These four modeling approaches were then applied to a real-world uncensored dataset of aridity and mortality rates among black South Africans over 1997–2013, applying artificial censoring and deterministic imputation to mimic what would have been obtained had these methods been applied to a censored version of the dataset. The mixed-effects censored negative binomial regression models performed well in both the simulation study and South African aridity study. This approach may be useful in epidemiological research with longitudinal datasets that involve interval-censored exposures.

Importance:The Patient Health Questionnaire depression module (PHQ-9) is a 9-item self-administered instrument used for detecting depression and assessing severity of depression. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) consists of the first 2 items of the PHQ-9 (which assess the frequency of depressed mood and anhedonia) and can be used as a first step to identify patients for evaluation with the full PHQ-9. Objective:To estimate PHQ-2 accuracy alone and combined with the PHQ-9 for detecting major depression. Data Sources:MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (January 2000-May 2018). Study Selection:Eligible data sets compared PHQ-2 scores with major depression diagnoses from a validated diagnostic interview. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Individual participant data were synthesized with bivariate random-effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity of the PHQ-2 alone among studies using semistructured, fully structured, or Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) diagnostic interviews separately and in combination with the PHQ-9 vs the PHQ-9 alone for studies that used semistructured interviews. The PHQ-2 score ranges from 0 to 6, and the PHQ-9 score ranges from 0 to 27. Results:Individual participant data were obtained from 100 of 136 eligible studies (44 318 participants; 4572 with major depression [10%]; mean [SD] age, 49 [17] years; 59% female). Among studies that used semistructured interviews, PHQ-2 sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 0.91 (0.88-0.94) and 0.67 (0.64-0.71) for cutoff scores of 2 or greater and 0.72 (0.67-0.77) and 0.85 (0.83-0.87) for cutoff scores of 3 or greater. Sensitivity was significantly greater for semistructured vs fully structured interviews. Specificity was not significantly different across the types of interviews. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.88 (0.86-0.89) for semistructured interviews, 0.82 (0.81-0.84) for fully structured interviews, and 0.87 (0.85-0.88) for the MINI. There were no significant subgroup differences. For semistructured interviews, sensitivity for PHQ-2 scores of 2 or greater followed by PHQ-9 scores of 10 or greater (0.82 [0.76-0.86]) was not significantly different than PHQ-9 scores of 10 or greater alone (0.86 [0.80-0.90]); specificity for the combination was significantly but minimally higher (0.87 [0.84-0.89] vs 0.85 [0.82-0.87]). The area under the curve was 0.90 (0.89-0.91). The combination was estimated to reduce the number of participants needing to complete the full PHQ-9 by 57% (56%-58%). Conclusions and Relevance:In an individual participant data meta-analysis of studies that compared PHQ scores with major depression diagnoses, the combination of PHQ-2 (with cutoff ≥2) followed by PHQ-9 (with cutoff ≥10) had similar sensitivity but higher specificity compared with PHQ-9 cutoff scores of 10 or greater alone. Further research is needed to understand the clinical and research value of this combined approach to screening.

Introduction: Three previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) reported that, compared to the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM (SCID), alternative reference standards, primarily the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), tended to misclassify major depression status, when controlling for depression symptom severity. However, there was an important lack of precision in the results. Objective: To compare the odds of the major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI. Methods: We included and standardized data from 3 IPDMA databases. For each IPDMA, separately, we fitted binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of major depression classification, controlling for symptom severity and characteristics of participants, and the interaction between interview and symptom severity. Next, we synthesized results using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis. Results: In total, 69,405 participants (7,574 [11%] with major depression) from 212 studies were included. Controlling for symptom severity and participant characteristics, the MINI (74 studies; 25,749 participants) classified major depression more often than the SCID (108 studies; 21,953 participants; aOR 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.92]). Classification odds for the CIDI (30 studies; 21,703 participants) and the SCID did not differ overall (aOR 1.19; 95% CI 0.79-1.75); however, as screening scores increased, the aOR increased less for the CIDI than the SCID (interaction aOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.80). Conclusions: Compared to the SCID, the MINI classified major depression more often. The odds of the depression classification with the CIDI increased less as symptom levels increased. Interpretation of research that uses diagnostic interviews to classify depression should consider the interview characteristics. © 2020

Additional file 3: Appendix III. Sensitivity Analyses

Additional file 4: Appendix IV. Forest Plots

Additional file 2: Appendix II. PROC NLMIXED Code

Additional file 1: Appendix I. Drought Severity Score Code

Objectives: Validated diagnostic interviews are required to classify depression status and estimate prevalence of disorder, but screening tools are often used instead. We used individual participant data meta-analysis to compare prevalence based on standard Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – depression subscale (HADS-D) cutoffs of ≥8 and ≥11 versus Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression and determined if an alternative HADS-D cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. Methods: We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (inception-July 11, 2016) for studies comparing HADS-D scores to SCID major depression status. Pooled prevalence and pooled differences in prevalence for HADS-D cutoffs versus SCID major depression were estimated. Results: 6005 participants (689 SCID major depression cases) from 41 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence was 24.5% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 20.5%, 29.0%) for HADS-D ≥8, 10.7% (95% CI: 8.3%, 13.8%) for HADS-D ≥11, and 11.6% (95% CI: 9.2%, 14.6%) for SCID major depression. HADS-D ≥11 was closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but the 95% prediction interval for the difference that could be expected for HADS-D ≥11 versus SCID in a new study was −21.1% to 19.5%. Conclusions: HADS-D ≥8 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. Of all possible cutoff thresholds, HADS-D ≥11 was closest to the SCID, but there was substantial heterogeneity in the difference between HADS-D ≥11 and SCID-based estimates. HADS-D should not be used as a substitute for a validated diagnostic interview. © 2020 Elsevier Inc.

Objective: Two previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) found that different diagnostic interviews classify different proportions of people as having major depression overall or by symptom levels. We compared the odds of major depression classification across diagnostic interviews among studies that administered the Depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D). Methods: Data accrued for an IPDMA on HADS-D diagnostic accuracy were analysed. We fit binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare odds of major depression classification for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), controlling for HADS-D scores and participant characteristics with and without an interaction term between interview and HADS-D scores. Results: There were 15,856 participants (1942 [12%] with major depression) from 73 studies, including 15,335 (97%) non-psychiatric medical patients, 164 (1%) partners of medical patients, and 357 (2%) healthy adults. The MINI (27 studies, 7345 participants, 1066 major depression cases) classified participants as having major depression more often than the CIDI (10 studies, 3023 participants, 269 cases) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.70 (0.84, 3.43)) and the semi-structured SCID (36 studies, 5488 participants, 607 cases) (aOR = 1.52 (1.01, 2.30)). The odds ratio for major depression classification with the CIDI was less likely to increase as HADS-D scores increased than for the SCID (interaction aOR = 0.92 (0.88, 0.96)). Conclusion: Compared to the SCID, the MINI may diagnose more participants as having major depression, and the CIDI may be less responsive to symptom severity. © 2019 Elsevier Inc.