Search

Introduction: Estimating the prevalence of second-hand tobacco smoke exposure is a public health priority while evaluating the population-attributable disease burden and impact of smoking bans. We conducted a systematic review to analyze how secondhand tobacco smoke exposure has been assessed, and how its prevalence has been estimated among the Portuguese population since the implementation of the partial smoking ban in 2008. Methods: A literature search was conducted in the Web of Science, MEDLINE and Embase databases until November 2022, applying a pre-designed search strategy and following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The search was not restricted by study period, study design, sample size or language, and was complemented by a manual literature search. A modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the studies. Results: Thirteen cross-sectional studies were included. The prevalence of second-hand tobacco smoke exposure among the three European studies ranged from 8.2% (adult population exposed at home in 2010) to 93.3% (adolescent/adult population exposed in bar/restaurant terraces in 2016). Three nationwide studies estimated children’s exposure at home: ranging from 32.6% in 2010 - 2011 to 14.4% in 2016. According to the most recent studies, 49.8% of women living in Porto were exposed during the third trimester of pregnancy in 2010 - 2011; 32.6% and 38.4% of children were exposed at home, respectively in Lisbon and the Azores. Conclusion: A significant proportion of the Portuguese population, especially children and pregnant women, remain exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke. A comprehensive smoke-free policy is needed, not only in outdoor public places, but also in indoor private settings.

Abstract Background Respirable crystalline silica (RCS) is associated with the development of lung cancer. However, there is uncertainty around the exposure threshold at which exposure to RCS may pose a clear risk for the development of lung cancer. The objective of this study was to review the cut-off points at which the risk of mortality or incidence of lung cancer due to occupational exposure to RCS becomes evident through a systematic review. Methods We conducted a search in PubMed, including cohort and case-control studies which assessed various categories of RCS exposure. A search was also conducted on the webpages of institutional organizations. A qualitative data synthesis was performed. Results Twenty studies were included. Studies that assessed lung cancer mortality and incidence displayed wide variability both in RCS exposure categories and related risks. Although most studies found no significant association for RCS exposure categories, it appears to be a low risk of lung cancer for mean concentrations of less than 0.07mg/m3. Regulatory agencies set annual RCS exposure limits ranging from 0.025mg/m3 through 0.1mg/m3. Conclusions There is a wide degree of heterogeneity in RCS exposure categories, with most studies observing no significant risk of lung cancer for the lowest exposure categories. Cut-off points differ between agencies but are nonetheless very similar and do not exceed 0.1mg/m3.

BackgroundSomatic EGFR mutations define a subset of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) that have clinical impact on NSCLC risk and outcome. However, EGFR-mutation-status is often missing in epidemiologic datasets. We developed and tested pragmatic approaches to account for EGFR-mutation-status based on variables commonly included in epidemiologic datasets and evaluated the clinical utility of these approaches.MethodsThrough analysis of the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO) epidemiologic datasets, we developed a regression model for EGFR-status; we then applied a clinical-restriction approach using the optimal cut-point, and a second epidemiologic, multiple imputation approach to ILCCO survival analyses that did and did not account for EGFR-status.ResultsOf 35,356 ILCCO patients with NSCLC, EGFR-mutation-status was available in 4,231 patients. A model regressing known EGFR-mutation-status on clinical and demographic variables achieved a concordance index of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.74-0.77) in the training and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.79) in the testing dataset. At an optimal cut-point of probability-score = 0.335, sensitivity = 69% and specificity = 72.5% for determining EGFR-wildtype status. In both restriction-based and imputation-based regression analyses of the individual roles of BMI on overall survival of patients with NSCLC, similar results were observed between overall and EGFR-mutation-negative cohort analyses of patients of all ancestries. However, our approach identified some differences: EGFR-mutated Asian patients did not incur a survival benefit from being obese, as observed in EGFR-wildtype Asian patients.ConclusionsWe introduce a pragmatic method to evaluate the potential impact of EGFR-status on epidemiological analyses of NSCLC.ImpactThe proposed method is generalizable in the common occurrence in which EGFR-status data are missing.

Introduction Small-area estimation methods are an alternative to direct surveybased estimates in cases where a survey’s sample size does not suffice to ensure representativeness. Nevertheless, the information yielded by small-area estimation methods must be validated. The objective of this study was thus to validate a small-area model. Methods The prevalence of smokers, ex-smokers, and never smokers by sex and age group (15–34, 35–54, 55–64, 65–74, ≥75 years) was calculated in two Spanish Autonomous Regions (ARs) by applying a weighted ratio estimator (direct estimator) to data from representative surveys. These estimates were compared against those obtained with a small-area model applied to another survey, specifically the Spanish National Health Survey, which did not guarantee representativeness for these two ARs by sex and age. To evaluate the concordance of the estimates, we calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the 95% confidence intervals of the differences between estimates. To assess the precision of the estimates, the coefficients of variation were obtained. Results In all cases, the ICC was ≥0.87, indicating good concordance between the direct and small-area model estimates. Slightly more than eight in ten 95% confidence intervals for the differences between estimates included zero. In all cases, the coefficient of variation of the small-area model was

Introduction Complete and accurate data on smoking prevalence at a local level would enable health authorities to plan context-dependent smoking interventions. However, national health surveys do not generally provide direct estimates of smoking prevalence by sex and age groups at the subnational level. This study uses a small-area model-based methodology to obtain precise estimations of smoking prevalence by sex, age group and region, from a population-based survey. Methods The areas targeted for analysis consisted of 180 groups based on a combination of sex, age group (15–34, 35–54, 55–64, 65–74, and ≥75 years), and Autonomous Region. Data on tobacco use came from the 2017 Spanish National Health Survey (2017 SNHS). In each of the 180 groups, we estimated the prevalence of smokers (S), ex-smokers (ExS) and never smokers (NS), as well as their coefficients of variation (CV), using a weighted ratio estimator (direct estimator) and a multinomial logistic model with random area effects. Results When smoking prevalence was estimated using the small-area model, the precision of direct estimates improved; the CV of S and ExS decreased on average by 26%, and those of NS by 25%. The range of S prevalence was 11–46% in men and 4–37% in women, excluding the group aged ≥75 years. Conclusions This study proposes a methodology for obtaining reliable estimates of smoking prevalence in groups or areas not covered in the survey design. The model applied is a good alternative for enhancing the precision of estimates at a detailed level, at a much lower cost than that involved in conducting large-scale surveys. This method could be easily integrated into routine data processing of population health surveys. Having such estimates directly after completing a health survey would help characterize the tobacco epidemic and/or any other risk factor more precisely.

Resumen: Objetivo: Describir las preguntas empleadas para valorar la exposición al humo ambiental de tabaco (HAT) en las encuestas de salud en España. Método: Extracción y análisis de literales de las preguntas sobre HAT de las encuestas de salud de España identificadas en las páginas web del Ministerio de Sanidad, Plan Nacional sobre Drogas y Consejerías de Sanidad de las comunidades autónomas. Resultados: Tres encuestas de ámbito nacional valoran la exposición al HAT, con variabilidad en las preguntas, las respuestas o el periodo de recuerdo. Cataluña en 2022, Galicia en 2018 y el País Vasco en 2018 valoraron la exposición de forma detallada. Conclusiones: Las preguntas orientadas a valorar la exposición autodeclarada al HAT son dependientes de la encuesta. Es necesario disponer de un conjunto de preguntas que permitan valorar la exposición de manera homogénea en las encuestas de salud. Abstract: Objective: To describe the questions used to assess exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) in Spanish health surveys. Method: Extraction and analysis of the literals of the questions on SHS in the health surveys in Spain identified on the website of the Ministry of Health, the National Plan on Drugs and Health Departments of the autonomous communities. Results: Three nationwide surveys assessed SHS exposure, with variability in questions, responses, and recall periods. Catalonia in 2022, and Galicia and the Basque Country in 2018, assessed exposure in detail. Conclusions: Questions assessing self-reported exposure to SHS are survey-dependent. There is a need for a set of questions to assess exposure in a homogeneous way in health surveys.

Objectives The aim of the study was to ascertain the percentage of Spanish lung cancer cases that would fulfil the lung cancer screening inclusion criteria recommended by the United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013 and 2021. Methods A cross-sectional study was carried out. All lung cancer cases registered in the Thoracic Tumor Registry with data on date of birth, date of diagnosis, smoking habit, number of pack-years and time elapsed since smoking cessation were included. Results The study included 15 006 patients diagnosed with lung cancer in Spain between 2016 and 2022. Eligibility to participate in screening increased from 53.7% to 63.5% (an increase of 9.8%) according to the 2013 and 2021 recommendations, respectively. The percentage of eligible men rose by 9.2 percentage points with the 2021 versus 2013 recommendations, whereas this rise was 11.5 percentage points in women. Under the 2021 recommendations, 36.6% of women and 5.3% of men would not have fulfilled the screening inclusion criteria due to being never-smokers; 14.9% of women and 11.0% of men would not have fulfilled the age criterion; and 27.0% of ex-smokers among women compared to 35.6% among men would not have been eligible due to >15 years having elapsed since smoking cessation. Conclusions In Spain, over one-third of lung cancer cases could not be detected through screening, by virtue of not meeting the most recent inclusion criteria stated by the USPSTF. The degree of fulfilment in a potential nationwide screening programme should be analysed, with the aim of establishing inclusion criteria in line with each country's context.

Objective: The need to generate evidence related to COVID-19, the acceleration of publication and peer-review process and the competition between journals may have influenced the quality of COVID-19 papers. Our objective was to compare the characteristics of COVID-19 papers against those of non-COVID-19 papers and identify the variables in which they differ. Method: We conducted a journal-matched case-control study. Cases were COVID-19 papers and controls were non-COVID-19 papers published between March 2020 and January 2021. Journals belonging to five different Journal Citations Reports categories were selected. Within each selected journal, a COVID-19 paper (where there was one) and another non-COVID-19 paper were selected. Conditional logistic regression models were fitted. Results: We included 81 COVID-19 and 143 non-COVID-19 papers. Descriptive observational studies and analytical observational studies had, respectively, a 55-fold (odds ratio [OR]: 55.12; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 7.41-409.84) and 19-fold (OR: 19.28; 95%CI: 3.09-120.31) higher likelihood of being COVID-19 papers, respectively, and also a higher probability of having a smaller sample size (OR: 7.15; 95%CI: 2.33-21.94). COVID-19 papers had a higher probability of being cited since their publication (OR: 4.97; 95%CI: 1.63-15.10). Conclusions: The characteristics of COVID-19 papers differed from those of non-COVID-19 papers published in the first months of the pandemic. In order to ensure the publication of good scientific evidence the quality of COVID-19-papers should be preserved. Resumen: Objetivo: La necesidad de generar evidencia relacionada con la COVID-19, la aceleración del proceso de revisión por pares y publicación, y la competencia entre revistas, pueden haber influido en la calidad de los artículos sobre la COVID-19. El objetivo fue comparar las características de los artículos sobre la COVID-19 con las de los artículos no COVID-19 e identificar las variables en las que difieren. Método: Se realizó un estudio de casos y controles emparejados por revista. Los casos eran artículos COVID-19 y los controles eran artículos no COVID-19 publicados en el mismo periodo. Se seleccionaron revistas pertenecientes a cinco categorías diferentes del Journal Citations Reports. Dentro de cada revista seleccionada, se escogió un artículo COVID-19 (cuando había uno) y otro artículo no COVID-19. Se ajustaron modelos de regresión logística condicional. Resultados: Se incluyeron 81 artículos COVID-19 y 143 artículos no COVID-19. Los estudios observacionales descriptivos y los estudios observacionales analíticos tenían, respectivamente, una probabilidad 55 veces mayor (odds ratio [OR]: 55,12; intervalo de confianza del 95% [IC95%]: 7,41-409,84) y 19 veces mayor (OR: 19,28; IC95%: 3,09-120,31) de ser artículos COVID-19 y de tener un tamaño de muestra menor (OR: 7,15; IC95%: 2,33-21,94). Los artículos más citados desde su publicación tenían 5 veces más probabilidades de ser artículos COVID-19 (OR: 4,97; IC95%: 1,63-15,10). Conclusiones: Los artículos COVID-19 parecen tener mayor impacto bibliométrico, a pesar de tener menor calidad metodológica. Para asegurar la publicación de buena evidencia científica se debe preservar la calidad de los artículos relacionados con la COVID-19.

Resumen: Objetivo: En España, debido a la falta de datos, se creó un registro de cáncer de pulmón, el Registro de Tumores Torácicos (RTT), el cual debería demostrar su comparabilidad con los datos poblacionales para tener una representatividad adecuada. Con esta finalidad, se comparan las características sociodemográficas del RTT con los datos de incidencia de la Red de Registros de Cáncer (REDECAN) y de mortalidad del Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE). Método: Se utilizaron las fuentes de datos de cáncer de pulmón disponibles hasta el momento: REDECAN e INE. De cada fuente se recogieron los casos de cáncer de pulmón globales y desagregados por sexo y por grupos de edad, y se compararon los datos para el periodo 2017-2020. Se calcularon las proporciones por sexo y grupo de edad del RTT respecto a ambas bases de datos (que recogen incidencia y mortalidad), para el periodo completo de estudio y desglosado por año. Resultados: Se incluyeron 17.109 casos incidentes de cáncer de pulmón incluidos en el RTT, 58.668 casos incidentes estimados de REDECAN y 88.083 muertes entre 2017 y 2020 del INE. En cuanto al sexo, las proporciones son muy similares entre las tres fuentes y las diferencias no superan el 4%. En cuanto a la edad, las diferencias no son elevadas, siendo mayores para los datos de mortalidad en el grupo de mayor edad del INE frente al RTT. Conclusiones: El RTT parece ser representativo de los casos de cáncer de pulmón diagnosticados en España para los años 2019 y 2020, tanto por sexo como por edad. Esto permite poder caracterizar con exactitud el estado de esta enfermedad, primera causa de muerte por cáncer en España, y que el análisis de resultados que se vayan a obtener del RTT pueda ser aplicado a los casos de cáncer de pulmón diagnosticados en nuestro país. Abstract: Objective: In Spain, due to the lack of data at national level a lung cancer registry, the Thoracic Tumour Registry (TTR), was created. Such registry should demonstrate comparability with population-based data to ensure representativeness at population level. The aim is to compare the socio-demographic characteristics of the TTR with incidence data from the Red de Registros de Cáncer (REDECAN) and mortality data from the Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE). Method: Lung cancer data sources available to date, REDECAN and INE, were used. Lung cancer cases overall and disaggregated by sex and age groups were collected from each source of information and data were compared for the period 2017-2020. Sex and age group proportions of TTR were calculated for both databases (which collect incidence and mortality data), for the entire study period and broken down by year. Results: A total of 17,109 incident lung cancer cases from the TTR, 58,668 estimated incident cases from REDECAN and 88,083 deaths registered from INE between 2017 and 2020 were included. In terms of sex, the proportions are very similar between the three sources and the differences do not exceed 4%. In terms of age, the differences are not large, being larger for mortality data in the older age group from the INE versus the TTR. Conclusions: The TTR seems to be representative of lung cancer cases diagnosed in Spain between 2019 and 2020, both by sex and age. This allows us to accurately characterise the status of this disease, which is the leading cause of cancer death in Spain, and that the analysis of results obtained from the RTT can be applied to cases of lung cancer diagnosed in our country.

Resumen: En los últimos años han salido a la luz muchos casos de mala conducta científica, algunos con importantes consecuencias, que han evidenciado las brechas que globalmente existen en cuanto a integridad científica. En España también se han dado casos notables de mala conducta científica en el ámbito de la investigación biomédica. Sin embargo, hasta el momento no se ha creado un organismo encargado de supervisar las fases de ejecución, análisis y publicación de las investigaciones biomédicas desde un punto de vista ético. Por lo tanto, en este contexto, consideramos que es necesaria la creación de una oficina que supervise la integridad científica en España y que actúe en caso de sospecha de mala conducta científica, llevando a cabo una investigación independiente y con capacidad sancionadora. La existencia de dicho organismo sería de especial importancia en el caso de las investigaciones financiadas con fondos públicos, ya que en ese caso el fraude en investigación supondría la malversación de dinero público. La creación de una oficina que realmente actúe frente a los casos detectados podría tener un efecto disuasorio sobre una potencial mala conducta de algunos investigadores, previniendo así situaciones de mala conducta científica. Abstract: In recent years, many cases of scientific misconduct have come to light, some with considerable consequences, highlighting the existing breaches in the scientific integrity globally. In Spain, there have also been high-profile cases of scientific misconduct. However, so far, no organism or agency has been created to monitor the execution, analysis and publication phases of biomedical research from an ethical point of view. Therefore, in this context, we consider that there is a need for the creation of an office which supervises research integrity in Spain which would act in cases of suspected scientific misconduct, carrying out an independent investigation and proposing public sanctions. The existence of such an organism would be of particular importance in the case of publicly funded research, since in that case research fraud would involve the misappropriation of public funds. The creation of an office that would act on detected cases could have a deterrent effect on potential misconduct by some researchers, thus preventing cases of scientific misconduct.