In the context of covid-19, aerosol generating procedures have been highlighted as requiring a higher grade of personal protective equipment. We investigated how official guidance documents and academic publications have classified procedures in terms of whether or not they are aerosol-generating. We performed a rapid systematic review using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses standards. Guidelines, policy documents and academic papers published in english or french offering guidance on aerosol-generating procedures were eligible. We systematically searched two medical databases (medline, cochrane central) and one public search engine (google) in march and april 2020. Data on how each procedure was classified by each source were extracted. We determined the level of agreement across different guidelines for each procedure group, in terms of its classification as aerosol generating, possibly aerosol-generating, or nonaerosol-generating. 128 documents met our inclusion criteria; they contained 1248 mentions of procedures that we categorised into 39 procedure groups. Procedures classified as aerosol-generating or possibly aerosol-generating by ≥90% of documents included autopsy, surgery/postmortem procedures with high-speed devices, intubation and extubation procedures, bronchoscopy, sputum induction, manual ventilation, airway suctioning, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, tracheostomy and tracheostomy procedures, non-invasive ventilation, high-flow oxygen therapy, breaking closed ventilation systems, nebulised or aerosol therapy, and high frequency oscillatory ventilation. Disagreements existed between sources on some procedure groups, including oral and dental procedures, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, thoracic surgery and procedures, and nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabbing. There is sufficient evidence of agreement across different international guidelines to classify certain procedure groups as aerosol generating. However, some clinically relevant procedures received surprisingly little mention in our source documents. To reduce dissent on the remainder, we recommend that (a) clinicians define procedures more clearly and specifically, breaking them down into their constituent components where possible; (b) researchers undertake further studies of aerosolisation during these procedures; and (c) guideline-making and policy-making bodies address a wider range of procedures.

There is uncertainty regarding the association between unprocessed red and processed meat consumption and the risk of ischemic heart disease (IHD), and little is known regarding the association with poultry intake. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantitatively assess the associations of unprocessed red, processed meat, and poultry intake and risk of IHD in published prospective studies. We systematically searched CAB Abstract, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, bioRxiv and medRxiv, and reference lists of selected studies and previous systematic reviews up to June 4, 2021. All prospective cohort studies that assessed associations between 1(þ) meat types and IHD risk (incidence and/or death) were selected. The meta-analysis was conducted using fixed-effects models. Thirteen published articles were included (n total ¼ 1,427,989; n cases ¼ 32,630). Higher consumption of unprocessed red meat was associated with a 9% (relative risk (RR) per 50 g/day higher intake, 1.09; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.07 to 1.16; n studies ¼ 12) and processed meat intake with an 18% higher risk of IHD (1.18; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.25; n studies ¼ 10). There was no association with poultry intake (n studies ¼ 10). This study provides substantial evidence that unprocessed red and processed meat, though not poultry, might be risk factors for IHD.

BACKGROUND This review was commissioned by the World Health Organization and presents a summary of the latest research evidence on the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on people with diabetes (PWD). PURPOSE To review the evidence regarding the extent to which PWD are at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and/or of suffering its complications, including associated mortality. DATA SOURCES We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Embase, MEDLINE, and LitCOVID on 3 December 2020. STUDY SELECTION Systematic reviews synthesizing data on PWD exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection, reporting data on confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital and/or to intensive care unit (ICU) with COVID-19, and death with COVID-19 were used. DATA EXTRACTION One reviewer appraised and extracted data; data were checked by a second. DATA SYNTHESIS Data from 112 systematic reviews were narratively synthesized and displayed using effect direction plots. Reviews provided consistent evidence that diabetes is a risk factor for severe disease and death from COVID-19. Fewer data were available on ICU admission, but where available, these data also signaled increased risk. Within PWD, higher blood glucose levels both prior to and during COVID-19 illness were associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. Type 1 diabetes was associated with worse outcomes than type 2 diabetes. There were no appropriate data for discerning whether diabetes was a risk factor for acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. LIMITATIONS Due to the nature of the review questions, the majority of data contributing to included reviews come from retrospective observational studies. Reviews varied in the extent to which they assessed risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS There are no data on whether diabetes predisposes to infection with SARS-CoV-2. Data consistently show that diabetes increases risk of severe COVID-19. As both diabetes and worse COVID-19 outcomes are associated with socioeconomic disadvantage, their intersection warrants particular attention.

Background People with personality disorder experience long waiting times for access to psychological treatments, resulting from a limited availability of long-term psychotherapies and a paucity of evidence-based brief interventions. Mentalisation-based treatment (MBT) is an efficacious therapeutic modality for personality disorder, but little is known about its viability as a short-term treatment. Aims We aimed to evaluate mental health, client satisfaction and psychological functioning outcomes before and after a 10-week group MBT programme as part of a stepped-care out-patient personality disorder service. Method We examined routinely collected pre–post treatment outcomes from 176 individuals (73% female) aged 20–63 years, attending a dedicated out-patient personality disorder service, who completed MBT treatment. Participants completed assessments examining mentalising capacity, client satisfaction, emotional reactivity, psychiatric symptom distress and social functioning. Results Post-MBT outcomes suggested increased mentalising capacity (mean difference 5.1, 95% CI 3.4–6.8, P < 0.001) and increased client satisfaction with care (mean difference 4.3, 95% CI 3.3–5.2, P < 0.001). Post-MBT emotional reactivity (mean difference −6.3, 95% CI −8.4 to −4.3, P < 0.001), psychiatric symptom distress (mean difference −5.2, 95% CI −6.8 to −3.7, P < 0.001) and impaired social functioning (mean difference −0.7, 95% CI −1.2 to −0.3, P = 0.002) were significantly lower than pre-treatment. Improved mentalising capacity predicted improvements in emotional reactivity (β = −0.56, P < 0.001) and social functioning (β = −0.35, P < 0.001). Conclusions Short-term MBT as a low-intensity treatment for personality disorder was associated with positive pre–post treatment changes in social and psychological functioning. MBT as deployed in this out-patient service expands access to personality disorder treatment.