The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of experts. Evidence from mechanistic and human data suggests that occupational exposure to ergonomic (or physical) risk factors may cause osteoarthritis and other musculoskeletal diseases (excluding rheumatoid arthritis, gout, and back and neck pain). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of occupational exposure to physical ergonomic risk factors for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years from these diseases that are attributable to exposure to this risk factor, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors for osteoarthritis and other musculoskeletal diseases. We searched electronic bibliographic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. The exposure was defined as any occupational exposure to one or more of: force exertion, demanding posture, repetitive movement, hand-arm vibration, kneeling or squatting, lifting, and/or climbing. We included all study types with an estimate of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors. At least two review authors independently screened 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. We combined prevalence estimates using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the ROB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Five studies (three cross-sectional studies and two cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising 150,895 participants (81,613 females) in 36 countries in two WHO regions (Africa, Europe). The exposure was generally assessed with questionnaire data about self-reported exposure. Estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors are presented for all five included studies, disaggregated by country, sex, 5-year age group, industrial sector or occupational group where feasible. The pooled prevalence of any occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.84, 3 studies, 148,433 participants, 35 countries in the WHO Europe region, I² 100%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no statistically significant differences in exposure by sex but differences by age group, occupation and country. No evidence was found for publication bias. We assessed this body evidence to be of low quality, based on serious concerns for risk of bias due to exposure assessment only being based on self-report and for indirectness due to evidence from two WHO regions only. Our systematic review and meta-analysis found that occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors is highly prevalent. The current body of evidence is, however, limited, especially by risk of bias and indirectness. Producing estimates for the burden of disease attributable to occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review may perhaps be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Protocol identifier:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.053. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102631.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of experts. Evidence from mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors may cause selected other musculoskeletal diseases, other than back or neck pain (MSD) or osteoarthritis of hip or knee (OA). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years from MSD or OA that are attributable to occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors (force exertion, demanding posture, repetitiveness, hand-arm vibration, lifting, kneeling and/or squatting, and climbing) on MSD and OA (two outcomes: prevalence and incidence). We developed and published a protocol, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including the International Trials Register, Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors (any exposure to force exertion, demanding posture, repetitiveness, hand-arm vibration, lifting, kneeling and/or squatting, and climbing ≥ 2 h/day) compared with no or low exposure to the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (<2 h/day) on the prevalence or incidence of MSD or OA. At least two review authors independently screened 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. Missing data were requested from principal study authors. We combined odds ratios using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using Navigation Guide tools adapted to this project. In total eight studies (4 cohort studies and 4 case control studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 2,378,729 participants (1,157,943 females and 1,220,786 males) in 6 countries in 3 WHO regions (Europe, Eastern Mediterranean and Western Pacific). The exposure was measured using self-reports in most studies and with a job exposure matrix in one study and outcome was generally assessed with physician diagnostic records or administrative health data. Across included studies, risk of bias was generally moderate. Compared with no or low exposure (<2 h per day), any occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors increased the risk of acquiring MSD (odds ratio (OR) 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14 to 2.72, 4 studies, 2,376,592 participants, I2 70%); and increased the risk of acquiring OA of knee or hip (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.40, 3 studies, 1,354 participants, I2 13%); Subgroup analysis for MSD found evidence for differences by sex, but indicated a difference in study type, where OR was higher among study participants in a case control study compared to study participants in cohort studies. Overall, for both outcomes, the main body of evidence was assessed as being of low quality. Occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors increased the risk of acquiring MSD and of acquiring OA of knee or hip. We judged the body of human evidence on the relationship between exposure to occupational ergonomic factors and MSD as "limited evidence of harmfulness" and the relationship between exposure to occupational ergonomic factors and OA also as "limited evidence of harmfulness". These relative risks might perhaps be suitable as input data for WHO/ILO modelling of work-related burden of disease and injury. Protocol identifier: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.053 PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102631.

Patients afflicted with melanoma show lower vitamin D serum levels (VDSL) than the healthy population. This hypothesis agrees with its well-known antiproliferative features. An observational study was carried out to collect VDSL in patients suffering from melanoma. Our aim was to identify a potential connection between low VDSL and the risk to incur melanoma. Furthermore, we studied the association between VDSL at the diagnosis of melanoma and other germane prognostic factors. The population held in regard was composed of 154 patients with a diagnosis of melanoma between 2016 and 2019. These patients were retrospectively collected from our follow-up storage. We compared VDSL to clinical and pathological parameters (age, sex, tumour location, Breslow’s depth, Clark’s level, histological subtype, ulceration, et aliqua). Moreover, we recruited a control group with negative melanoma history. Mean and median of VDSL were significantly lower in the melanoma group. Instead, we found a negative association between melanoma and VDSL > 30 ng/L (OR 0.11; p < 0.0001). No correlation between VDSL and both Breslow’s depth and Clark’s level was discovered, but the VDSL comparison between thin (depth ≤ 1 mm) and thick tumours (depth > 1 mm) revealed a statistically significant difference (21.1 ± 8.2 ng/L vs 17.8 ± 8.1; p = 0.01). Moreover, VDSL were significantly lower in melanomas with mitotic rate ≥ 1/mm² (22.1 ± 8.3 ng/L; p < 0007). Nevertheless, no connection was found between VDSL and both ulceration and positive sentinel nodes (p = 0.76; p = 0.74). Besides, our study revealed no association between VDSL and histological subtype (p = 0.161). Lower VDSL correlate with thick and high mitotic rate tumours. Future prospective studies would investigate if appropriate upkeep of suitable VDSL can decrease the risk of primary and recurrent melanoma diagnosis.

Objective: To study the source, symptoms, and duration of infection, preventive measures, contact tracing and their effects on SARS-CoV-2 epidemic among healthcare workers (HCW) in 2 large hospitals and 40 external healthcare services in Milan (Italy) to propose effective measures to control the COVID-19 epidemic among healthcare workers. Design: Epidemiological observational study. Setting: Two large hospitals and 40 territorial healthcare units, with a total of 5700 workers. Participants: 143 HCWs with a SARS-CoV-2 positive nasopharyngeal (NF) swab in a population made of 5,700 HCWs. Main outcome measures: Clinical data on the history of exposure, contacts inside and outside of the hospital, NF swab dates and results. A daily online self-reported case report form consisting of the morning and evening body temperature and 11 other symptoms (cough, dyspnoea, discomfort, muscle pain, headache, sore throat, vomiting, diarrhoea, anosmia, dysgeusia, conjunctival hyperaemia). Results: Most workers were tested and found positive due to a close contact with a positive colleague (49%), followed by worker-initiated testing due to symptoms (and unknown contact, 28%), and a SARS-CoV-2 positive member of the family (9.8%). 10% of NF swabs performed in the framework of contact tracing resulted positive, compared to only 2.6% through random testing. The first (index) case caused a cluster of 7 positive HCWs discovered through contact tracing and testing of 250 asymptomatic HCWs. HCWs rarely reported symptoms of a respiratory infection, and up to 90% were asymptomatic or with mild symptoms in the days surrounding the positive NF swab. During the 15-day follow-up period, up to 40% of HCWs reported anosmia and dysgeusia/ageusia as moderate or heavy, more frequently than any other symptom. The time necessary for 95% of HCWs to be considered cured (between the positive and two negative NF swabs) was 30 days. Conclusion: HCWs represent the main source of infection in healthcare institutions, 90% are asymptomatic or with symptoms not common in a respiratory infection. The time needed to overcome the infection in 95% of workers was 30 days. Contact tracing allows identifying asymptomatic workers which would spread SARS-CoV-2 in the hospital and is a more successful strategy than random testing. What is already known on this topic?: There are more than 3 million SARS-CoV-2 positive cases and more than 200,000 deaths attributed to coronavirus disease (COVID-19) worldwide. Commonly reported symptoms of COVID-19 include fever, cough, dyspnea, sore throat, muscle pain, discomfort, and many prevention strategies are based on identifying these symptoms of infection. The virus can be spread even by asymptomatic patients or patients with mild symptoms, and healthcare workers (HCWs) represent 10% of overall cases and often more than 10% of hospital personnel are commonly infected. HCWs represent both a vulnerable population and an irreplaceable resource in the fight against this epidemic and further analysis is needed to show how and why they get infected and introduce successful prevention measures. What this study adds?: The first (index) case in our study was infected by a family member, but due to close contacts with colleagues managed to infect other 7 HCWs. Contrary to a common expectation that HCWs get infected from patients, they regularly get infected by other HCWs. Up to 90% of HCWs were asymptomatic or had only mild symptoms. Random testing for SARS-CoV-2 was not efficient. Active search for suspect cases through contact tracing is the strategy of choice to identify most of the positive HCWs. Most HCWs remained asymptomatic during the 15-day follow-up period, and even in the days prior to the positive NF swab. Anosmia and ageusia/dysgeusia were reported more commonly than classic symptoms of a respiratory infection. Contrary to the recommended quarantine of 14 days, 30 days were necessary for 95% of the workers to be declared cured (two negative NF swabs)