The precise role that deforestation for agricultural settlements and commercial forest products plays in promoting or inhibiting malaria incidence in Amazonian Brazil is controversial. Using publically available databases, we analyzed temporal malaria incidence (2009–2015) in municipalities of nine Amazonian states in relation to ecologically defined variables: (i) deforestation (rate of forest clearing over time); (ii) degraded forest (degree of human disturbance and openness of forest canopy for logging) and (iii) impacted forest (sum of deforested and degraded forest patches). We found that areas affected by one kilometer square of deforestation produced 27 new malaria cases (r² = 0.78; F1,10 = 35.81; P < 0.001). Unexpectedly, we found both a highly significant positive correlation between number of impacted forest patches less than 5 km2 and malaria cases, and that these patch sizes accounted for greater than ~95% of all patches in the study area. There was a significantly negative correlation between extraction forestry economic indices and malaria cases. Our results emphasize not only that deforestation promotes malaria incidence, but also that it directly or indirectly results in a low Human Development Index, and favors environmental conditions that promote malaria vector proliferation.

BackgroundPatient-reported outcome validation needs to achieve validity and reliability standards. Among reliability analysis parameters, test-retest reliability is an important psychometric property. Retested patients must be in a clinically stable condition. This is particularly problematic in palliative care (PC) settings because advanced cancer patients are prone to a faster rate of clinical deterioration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methods by which multi-symptom and health-related qualities of life (HRQoL) based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been validated in oncological PC settings with regards to test-retest reliability.MethodsA systematic search of PubMed (1966 to June 2013), EMBASE (1980 to June 2013), PsychInfo (1806 to June 2013), CINAHL (1980 to June 2013), and SCIELO (1998 to June 2013), and specific PRO databases was performed. Studies were included if they described a set of validation studies. Studies were included if they described a set of validation studies for an instrument developed to measure multi-symptom or multidimensional HRQoL in advanced cancer patients under PC. The COSMIN checklist was used to rate the methodological quality of the study designs.ResultsWe identified 89 validation studies from 746 potentially relevant articles. From those 89 articles, 31 measured test-retest reliability and were included in this review. Upon critical analysis of the overall quality of the criteria used to determine the test-retest reliability, 6 (19.4%), 17 (54.8%), and 8 (25.8%) of these articles were rated as good, fair, or poor, respectively, and no article was classified as excellent. Multi-symptom instruments were retested over a shortened interval when compared to the HRQoL instruments (median values 24 hours and 168 hours, respectively; p = 0.001). Validation studies that included objective confirmation of clinical stability in their design yielded better results for the test-retest analysis with regard to both pain and global HRQoL scores (p < 0.05). The quality of the statistical analysis and its description were of great concern.ConclusionTest-retest reliability has been infrequently and poorly evaluated. The confirmation of clinical stability was an important factor in our analysis, and we suggest that special attention be focused on clinical stability when designing a PRO validation study that includes advanced cancer patients under PC.

Oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma is less aggressive in the HPV16 E6/E7 positive serology patients. HPV16 E6/E7 antibody is a clinically sensible surrogate prognostic marker of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.