Cancer incidence has continuously increased over the past few centuries and represents a major health burden worldwide. To evaluate the possible causal relationship between intake of red and processed meat and cancer mortality and incidence. Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, CINAHL, and ProQuest from inception until July 2018 and MEDLINE from inception until April 2019 without language restrictions. Cohort studies that included more than 1000 adults and reported the association between consumption of unprocessed red and processed meat and cancer mortality and incidence. Teams of 2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias; 1 reviewer evaluated the certainty of evidence, which was confirmed or revised by the senior reviewer. Of 118 articles (56 cohorts) with more than 6 million participants, 73 articles were eligible for the dose–response meta-analyses, 30 addressed cancer mortality, and 80 reported cancer incidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that an intake reduction of 3 servings of unprocessed meat per week was associated with a very small reduction in overall cancer mortality over a lifetime. Evidence of low to very low certainty suggested that each intake reduction of 3 servings of processed meat per week was associated with very small decreases in overall cancer mortality over a lifetime; prostate cancer mortality; and incidence of esophageal, colorectal, and breast cancer. Limited causal inferences due to residual confounding in observational studies, risk of bias due to limitations in diet assessment and adjustment for confounders, recall bias in dietary assessment, and insufficient data for planned subgroup analyses. The possible absolute effects of red and processed meat consumption on cancer mortality and incidence are very small, and the certainty of evidence is low to very low. None. (PROSPERO: CRD42017074074)

A person's meat consumption is often determined by their values and preferences. To identify and evaluate evidence addressing health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences Abstracts, International System for Agricultural Science and Technology, and Food Science and Technology Abstracts were searched from inception to July 2018 without language restrictions. Pairs of reviewers independently screened search results and included quantitative and qualitative studies reporting adults' health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were synthesized into narrative form, and summaries were tabulated and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Of 19 172 initial citations, 41 quantitative studies (38 addressed reasons for meat consumption and 5 addressed willingness to reduce meat consumption) and 13 qualitative studies (10 addressed reasons for meat consumption and 4 addressed willingness to reduce meat consumption) were eligible for inclusion. Thirteen studies reported that omnivores enjoy eating meat, 18 reported that these persons consider meat an essential component of a healthy diet, and 7 reported that they believe they lack the skills needed to prepare satisfactory meals without meat. Omnivores are generally unwilling to change their meat consumption. The certainty of evidence was low for both “reasons for meat consumption” and “willingness to reduce meat consumption in the face of undesirable health effects.” Limited generalizability of findings to lower-income countries, low-certainty evidence for willingness to reduce meat consumption, and limited applicability to specific types of meat (red and processed meat). Low-certainty evidence suggests that omnivores are attached to meat and are unwilling to change this behavior when faced with potentially undesirable health effects. None. (PROSPERO: CRD42018088854)

Background: Physician satisfaction is a multidimensional concept related to many factors. Despite the wide range of research regarding factors affecting physician satisfaction in different European countries, there is a lack of literature reviews analyzing and summarizing current evidence. The aim of the article is to synthetize the literature studying the factors associated with physician satisfaction. Methods: We searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 to January 2017. The eligibility criteria included: (1) target population: physicians working in European hospitals; (2) quantitative research aimed at assessing physician satisfaction and associated factors; (3) use of validated tools. We performed a narrative synthesis. Results: After screening 8585 records, 368 full text articles were independently checked and finally 24 studies were included for qualitative analysis. The included studies surveyed 20,000 doctors from 12 European countries. The tools and scales used in the analyzed research to measure physician satisfaction varied to a large extent. We extracted all pre-specified factors, reported as statistically significant/non-significant. Analyzed factors were divided into three groups: personal, intrinsic and contextual factors. The majority of factors are modifiable and positively associated with characteristics of contextual factors, such as work-place setting/work environment. In the group of work-place related factors, quality of management/leadership, opportunity for professional development and colleague support have been deemed statistically significant in numerous studies. Conclusions: We identified more studies appraising the effect of contextual factors (such as work environment, work-place characteristics), highlighting a positive association between those factors and physician satisfaction, compared with personal and intrinsic factors. Numerous studies confirmed statistically significant associations between physician satisfaction and quality of management, professional development and colleague support/team climate. Due to the health workforce crisis, knowledge regarding physician satisfaction and associated factors is essential to healthcare managers and policy makers for more stable human resources management.

Background: The aim of the study was to assess if the presence of nasal septal deviation and concha bullosa is connected with the development of sinuses and the incidence of inflammation within them. Material/Methods: We retrospectively analysed 214 patients who underwent paranasal sinus computed tomography. There were 125 females and 89 males, the mean age being 47.67±16.74 years (range 18–97). Exclusion criteria included: age under 18 years, prior sinonasal surgery and S-shaped septum. Results: Mean volume of the right maxillary sinus was 17.794 cm3, while for the left one it was 17.713 cm3. Nasal septal deviation was found in 79.9% of computed tomography examinations and concha bullosa was observed in 42.1% of the patients’ examinations. There was an association between the presence of unilateral or dominant concha bullosa and contralateral direction of septal deviation [right-sided (p=0.039), left-sided (p=0.003)]. There was higher incidence of bilateral maxillary sinusitis in patients with septal deviation (p=0.007). Bilateral concha bullosa did not influence the incidence of bilateral maxillary sinusitis (p=0.495). Neither septal deviation (right sided: p=0.962; left-sided: p=0.731), nor unilateral/dominant concha bullosa (right: p=0.512; left: p=0,430) affected the asymmetry in volumes of maxillary sinuses. Bilateral concha bullosa was connected with larger volume of maxillary sinuses (right sinus: p=0.005; left sinus: p=0.048). Conclusions: Nasal septal deviation, contrary to concha bullosa, has influence on the development of maxillary sinusitis. There is a connection between the presence of concha bullosa and direction of septal deviation. Only bilateral concha bullosa affects maxillary sinus volumes.