Increasing evidence shows that health inequalities exist between and within countries, and emphasis has been placed on strengthening the production and use of the global health inequalities research, so as to improve capacities to act. Yet, a comprehensive overview of this evidence base is still needed, to determine what is known about the global and historical scientific production on health inequalities to date, how is it distributed in terms of country income groups and world regions, how has it changed over time, and what international collaboration dynamics exist. A comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the global scientific production on health inequalities, from 1966 to 2015, was conducted using Scopus database. The historical and global evolution of the study of health inequalities was considered, and through joinpoint regression analysis and visualisation network maps, the preceding questions were examined. 159 countries (via authorship affiliation) contributed to this scientific production, three times as many countries than previously found. Scientific output on health inequalities has exponentially grown over the last five decades, with several marked shift points, and a visible country-income group affiliation gradient in the initiation and consistent publication frequency. Higher income countries, especially Anglo-Saxon and European countries, disproportionately dominate first and co-authorship, and are at the core of the global collaborative research networks, with the Global South on the periphery. However, several country anomalies exist that suggest that the causes of these research inequalities, and potential underlying dependencies, run deeper than simply differences in country income and language. Whilst the global evidence base has expanded, Global North-South research gaps exist, persist and, in some cases, are widening. Greater understanding of the structural determinants of these research inequalities and national research capacities is needed, to further strengthen the evidence base, and support the long term agenda for global health equity.

The identification of general population groups particularly vulnerable to the impact of COVID-19 lockdown measures on mental health and the development of healthcare policies are priority challenges in the current and future pandemics. This study aimed to identify the personal and social determinants of the impact of COVID-19 lockdown measures on mental health in a large sample of the Colombian population. In this cross-sectional study, an anonymous online survey was answered by 18,061 participants from the general population residing in Colombia during the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak (from 20 May to 20 June 2020). The risk of depression, anxiety, and somatization disorders were measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-2), and Somatic Symptom Questionnaire (SSQ-5), respectively. Overall, 35% of participants showed risk of depression, 29% of anxiety, and 31% of somatization. According to the analysis of social determinants of health, the most affected groups were people with low incomes, students, and young adults (18–29 years). Specifically, low-income young females were the most at-risk population group. These findings show how the lockdown measures affected the general population’s mental health in Colombia and highlight some social risk factors in health.

This study aimed to evaluate the association between the severity of hypomineralized second primary molars (HSPM), molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH) and dental caries in children. 450 children between the ages of 6 and 7 years were included in this cross-sectional study. A calibrated examiner classified the enamel hypomineralizations and dental caries lesions using the MIH and HSPM and the Nyvad criteria, respectively. The primary outcome was the severity of MIH according to the severity of HSPM. Statistical analysis was performed using the generalized linear model and ordinal logistic regression. The prevalence of concomitant MIH and HSPM was 26% sex and age adjusted. Mild enamel defects were more frequent than severe enamel defects. An association was found between the severity of MIH and HSPM, both for mild defects (OR=87.54; 95%CI: 55.87, 137.17) and severe defects (OR=82.15; 95%CI: 45.72, 147.61). The severity of hypomineralization in permanent molars was associated with the activity of dental caries lesions (OR=29.85; 95%CI: 12.95, 68.83). To conclude, there is a strong association between the severity of HSPM and MIH, which is more significant in the presence of active dental caries lesions.

Objective To summarize the available evidence of TAP Block in efficacy in laparoscopic or robotic hysterectomy. Data Sources We searched databases and gray literature for randomized controlled trials in which transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block was compared with placebo or with no treatment in patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted hysterectomy. Method of Study Selection Two researchers independently evaluated the eligibility of the selected articles. Tabulation, Integration, and Results Seven studies were selected, involving 518 patients. Early postoperative pain showed a difference in the mean mean difference (MD): - 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 1.87–0.46) in pain scale scores (I² = 68%), which was statistically significant in favor of using TAP block, but without clinical relevance; late postoperative pain: DM 0.001 (95%CI: - 0.43–0.44; I² = 69%); opioid requirement: DM 0.36 (95%CI: - 0.94–1.68; I² = 80%); and incidence of nausea and vomiting with a difference of 95%CI = - 0.11 (- 0.215–0.006) in favor of TAP. Conclusion With moderate strength of evidence, due to the high heterogeneity and imbalance in baseline characteristics among studies, the results indicate that TAP block should not be considered as a clinically relevant analgesic technique to improve postoperative pain in laparoscopic or robotic hysterectomy, despite statistical significance in early postoperative pain scale scores. Clinical Trial Number and Registry: PROSPERO ID - CRD42018103573. Objetivo Resumir as evidências disponíveis sobre a eficácia do bloqueio TAP em histerectomia laparoscópica ou robótica. Fontes de Dados Pesquisamos bancos de dados e literatura cinza por ensaios clínicos randomizados nos quais o bloqueio do plano transverso do abdome (TAP na sigla em inglês) foi comparado com placebo ou com nenhum tratamento em pacientes que foram submetidos a histerectomia laparoscópica ou assistida por robô. Métodos de Seleção de Estudos Dois pesquisadores avaliaram independentemente a elegibilidade dos artigos selecionados. Tabulação, Integração e Resultados Sete estudos foram selecionados envolvendo 518 pacientes. A dor pós-operatória precoce apresentou diferença nas médias (DM) de: -1 17 (intervalo de confiança [IC] de 95%: - 1 87–0 46) nos escores da escala de dor (I2 = 68%) o que foi estatisticamente significativo a favor do uso do bloqueio TAP mas sem relevância clínica; dor pós-operatória tardia: DM 0001 (IC95%: - 043–044; I2 = 69%); necessidade de opioides: DM 0 36 (95%CI: - 0 94–168; I2 = 80%); e incidência de náuseas e vômitos com diferença de 95% CI = - 011 (- 0215–0006) a favor do TAP. Conclusão Com moderada força de evidência devido à alta heterogeneidade e ao desequilíbrio nas características basais entre os estudos os resultados indicam que o bloqueio do TAP não deve ser considerado como uma técnica analgésica clinicamente relevante para melhorar a dor pós-operatória em histerectomia laparoscópica ou robótica apesar da significância estatística nas pontuações da escala de dor pós-operatória inicial. Número e Registro do Ensaio Clínico: PROSPERO ID - CRD42018103573. Received: 05 March 2021 Accepted: 30 August 2021 Article published online: 29 January 2022 © 2022. Federação Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda. Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil