Recently in Canada, there has been an effort to create consistent messaging about sun safety as there is a lack of up-to-date evidence-based guidelines regarding sun-protection measures. This review aimed to provide updated, evidence-based recommendations on sunscreen application, safety, and sun protection regarding the following topics for which there is clinical uncertainty: physical barriers, sunscreen properties, sunscreen application, and risk-benefit analysis.

No abstract

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there has been a global shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). In this setting, cloth masks may play an important role in limiting disease transmission; however, current literature on the use of cloth masks remains inconclusive. This review aims to integrate current studies and guidelines to determine the efficacy and use of cloth masks in healthcare settings and/or the community. Evidence-based suggestions on the most effective use of cloth masks during a pandemic are presented. Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar were searched on March 31, 2020, and updated on April 6, 2020. Studies reporting on the efficacy, usability, and accessibility of cloth masks were included. Additionally, a search of guidelines and recommendations on cloth mask usage was conducted through published material by international and national public health agencies. Nine articles were included in this review after full-text screening. The clinical efficacy of a face mask is determined by the filtration efficacy of the material, fit of the mask, and compliance to wearing the mask. Household fabrics such as cotton T-shirts and towels have some filtration efficacy and therefore potential for droplet retention and protection against virus-containing particles. However, the percentage of penetration in cloth masks is higher than surgical masks or N95 respirators. Cloth masks have limited inward protection in healthcare settings where viral exposure is high but may be beneficial for outward protection in low-risk settings and use by the general public where no other alternatives to medical masks are available.

OBJECTIVES A prediction model developed by Passman et al. stratifies patients’ risk of postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after major non-cardiac thoracic surgery using 3 simple factors (sex, age and preoperative resting heart rate). The model has neither undergone external validation nor proven to be relevant in current thoracic surgery practice. METHODS A retrospective single-centre analysis of all patients who underwent major non-cardiac thoracic surgery (2008–2017) with prospective documentation of incidence and severity of POAF was used for external validation of Passman’s derivation sample (published in 2005 with 856 patients). The model calibration was assessed by evaluating the incidence of POAF and patients’ risk scores (0–6). RESULTS A total of 2054 patients were included. Among them, POAF occurred in 164 (7.9%), compared to 147 (17.2%) in Passman’s study. Differences in our sample compared to Passman’s sample included mean heart rate (75.7 vs 73.7 bpm, P < 0.001), proportion of patients with hypertension (46.1 vs 29.4%, P < 0.001), proportion of extensive lung resections, particularly pneumonectomy (6.1 vs 21%, P < 0.001) and proportion of minimally invasive surgeries (56.6% vs 0%). The model demonstrated a positive correlation between risk scores and POAF incidence (risk score 1.2% vs 6.16%). CONCLUSIONS The POAF model demonstrated good calibration in our population, despite a lower overall incidence of POAF compared to the derivation study. POAF rates were higher among patients with a higher risk score and undergoing procedures with greater intrathoracic dissection. This tool may be useful in identifying patients who are at risk of POAF when undergoing major thoracic surgery and may, therefore, benefit from targeted prophylactic therapy.

No abstract