The burgeoning epidemic of diabetes mellitus (DM) is one of the major global health challenges. We systematically reviewed the published literature to provide a summary estimate of the association between DM and active tuberculosis (TB). We searched Medline and EMBASE databases for studies reporting adjusted estimates on the TB–DM association published before December 22, 2015, with no restrictions on region and language. In the meta-analysis, adjusted estimates were pooled using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model, according to study design. Risk of bias assessment and sensitivity analyses were conducted. 44 eligible studies were included, which consisted of 58,468,404 subjects from 16 countries. Compared with non-DM patients, DM patients had 3.59–fold (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.25–5.73), 1.55–fold (95% CI 1.39–1.72), and 2.09–fold (95% CI 1.71–2.55) increased risk of active TB in four prospective, 16 retrospective, and 17 case-control studies, respectively. Country income level (3.16–fold in low/middle–vs. 1.73–fold in high–income countries), background TB incidence (2.05–fold in countries with >50 vs. 1.89–fold in countries with ≤50 TB cases per 100,000 person-year), and geographical region (2.44–fold in Asia vs. 1.71–fold in Europe and 1.73–fold in USA/Canada) affected appreciably the estimated association, but potential risk of bias, type of population (general versus clinical), and potential for duplicate data, did not. Microbiological ascertainment for TB (3.03–fold) and/or blood testing for DM (3.10–fold), as well as uncontrolled DM (3.30–fold), resulted in stronger estimated association. DM is associated with a two- to four-fold increased risk of active TB. The association was stronger when ascertainment was based on biological testing rather than medical records or self-report. The burgeoning DM epidemic could impact upon the achievements of the WHO “End TB Strategy” for reducing TB incidence.

Background: Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) is defined as the type of hyperglycemia diagnosed for the first-time during pregnancy, presenting with intermediate glucose levels between normal levels for pregnancy and glucose levels diagnostic of diabetes in the non-pregnant state. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze studies of prevalence of GDM in European countries at regional and sub-regional levels, according to age, trimester, body weight, and GDM diagnostic criteria.Methods: Systematic search was conducted in five databases to retrieve studies from 2014 to 2019 reporting the prevalence of GDM in Europe. Two authors have independently screened titles and abstracts and full text according to eligibility using Covidence software. A random-effects model was used to quantify weighted GDM prevalence estimates. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute criteria was used to assess the risk of bias.Results: From the searched databases, 133 research reports were deemed eligible and included in the meta-analysis. The research reports yielded 254 GDM-prevalence studies that tested 15,572,847 pregnant women between 2014 and 2019. The 133 research reports were from 24 countries in Northern Europe (44.4%), Southern Europe (27.1%), Western Europe (24.1%), and Eastern Europe (4.5%). The overall weighted GDM prevalence in the 24 European countries was estimated at 10.9% (95% CI: 10.0–11.8, I²: 100%). The weighted GDM prevalence was highest in the Eastern Europe (31.5%, 95% CI: 19.8–44.6, I²: 98.9%), followed by in Southern Europe (12.3%, 95% CI: 10.9–13.9, I²: 99.6%), Western Europe (10.7%, 95% CI: 9.5–12.0, I²: 99.9%), and Northern Europe (8.9%, 95% CI: 7.9–10.0, I²: 100). GDM prevalence was 2.14-fold increased in pregnant women with maternal age ≥30 years (versus 15-29 years old), 1.47-fold if the diagnosis was made in the third trimester (versus second trimester), and 6.79- fold in obese and 2.29-fold in overweight women (versus normal weight).Conclusions: In Europe, GDM is significant in pregnant women, around 11%, with the highest prevalence in pregnant women of Eastern European countries (31.5%). Findings have implications to guide vigilant public health awareness campaigns about the risk factors associated with developing GDM.Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier CRD42020161857.

Self-reported measures of height and weight are often used in large epidemiological studies. However, concerns remain regarding the validity and reliability of these self-reported measures. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise and evaluate the comparative validity of measured and self-reported weight and height data and to recommend strategies to improve the reliability of self-reported-data collection across studies. This systematic review adopted the PRISMA guidelines. Four online sources, including PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, and CINAHL, were utilised. A total of 17,800 articles were screened, and 10 studies were eligible to be included in the SLR based on the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The findings from the studies revealed good agreement between measured and self-reported weight and height based on intra-class correlation coefficient and Bland–Altman plots. Overall, measured weight and height had higher validity and reliability (ICC > 0.9; LOA < 1 SD). However, due to biases such as social pressure and self-esteem issues, women underreported their weight, while men overreported their height. In essence, self-reported measures remain valuable indicators to supplement the restricted direct anthropometric data, particularly in large-scale surveys. However, it is essential to address potential sources of bias.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (or keratinocyte carcinoma) from occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation on melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework and conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way. Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records and consult additional experts. We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State, but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative studies on the prevalence of relevant levels of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (i.e. <0.33 SED/d and ≥0.33 SED/d) and of the total working time spent outdoors, stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation, in the years 1960 to 2018. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of any occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (i.e., ≥0.33 SED/d) on the prevalence of, incidence of or mortality due to melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e. <0.33 SED/d). At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. CRD42018094817.

Women in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region are burdened with several risk factors related to gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) including overweight and high parity. We systematically reviewed the literature and quantified the weighted prevalence of GDM in MENA at the regional, subregional, and national levels. Studies published from 2000 to 2019 reporting the prevalence of GDM in the MENA region were retrieved and were assessed for their eligibility. Overall and subgroup pooled prevalence of GDM was quantified by random-effects meta-analysis. Sources of heterogeneity were investigated by meta-regression. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s tool. One hundred and two research articles with 279,202 tested pregnant women for GDM from 16 MENA countries were included. Most of the research reports sourced from Iran (36.3%) and Saudi Arabia (21.6%), with an overall low RoB. In the 16 countries, the pooled prevalence of GDM was 13.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.5–14.6%, I², 99.3%). Nationally, GDM was highest in Qatar (20.7%, 95% CI, 15.2–26.7% I², 99.0%), whereas subregionally, GDM was highest in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries (14.7%, 95% CI, 13.0–16.5%, I², 99.0%). The prevalence of GDM was high in pregnant women aged ≥30 years (21.9%, 95% CI, 18.5–25.5%, I², 97.1%), in their third trimester (20.0%, 95% CI, 13.1–27.9%, I², 98.8%), and who were obese (17.2%, 95% CI, 12.8–22.0%, I², 93.8%). The prevalence of GDM was 10.6% (95% CI, 8.1–13.4%, I², 98.9%) in studies conducted before 2009, whereas it was 14.0% (95% CI, 12.1–16.0%, I², 99.3%) in studies conducted in or after 2010. Pregnant women in the MENA region are burdened with a substantial prevalence of GDM, particularly in GCC and North African countries. Findings have implications for maternal health in the MENA region and call for advocacy to unify GDM diagnostic criteria.Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018100629

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. Here, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years of cataracts from occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation on the development of cataract (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework and conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way. Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Sciences. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts. We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in WHO and/or ILO Member States, but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative studies on the prevalence of relevant levels of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation and of the total working time spent outdoors from 1960 to 2018, stratified by sex, age, country and industrial sector or occupation. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of any occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (i.e. ≥30 Jm-2/day of occupational solar UV exposure at the surface of the eye) on the prevalence or incidence of cataract, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e. <30 Jm-2/day of occupational solar UV exposure at the surface of the eye). At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration: CRD42018098897.