Cadmium levels in the lung, liver, kidney cortex, and urine samples from Australians without occupational exposure to metals

The authors undertook this study to assess levels of cadmium exposure in the general population. Samples of lung, liver, and kidney were obtained from 61 cadavers (43 males, 18 females; 2-89 yr of age, mean age = 38.5 yr) who died from accidental causes and who were subject to postmortem examinations at the John Tonge Centre for Forensic Sciences, Queensland Health Scientific Services, Brisbane, Australia, in 1997 and 1998. Samples of bladder urine were also obtained from 22 cadavers. Tissue and urine samples were analyzed for cadmium, zinc, and copper with inductively coupled plasm (ICP) mass spectrometry. The overall mean values for cadmium in the lung, liver, and kidney cortex samples were 0.13, 0.95, and 15.45 mug/gm wet tissue weight. The average renal cadmium level in subjects with high lung-cadmium levels (n = 13) was 6 mug/gm wet tissue weight higher than that of similarly aged subjects who had medium lung-cadmium levels (n = 30). In females, the average level of cadmium in the liver was 74% greater than in males, and the average liver cadmium in females with high lung-cadmium levels was 100% higher than in males in the same age range who had the same high lung-cadmium levels. Renal cadmium accumulation tended to be greater in females than in males who were in the same age range and who had similar lung-cadmium levels, a result that suggested that there was a higher absorption rate of cadmium in females. The mean value for a urinary cadmium excretion of 2.30 mug/gm creatinine was found in a subset of samples that had a mean age of 39 yr and a renal cortex cadmium concentration of 18.6 mug/gm wet tissue weight. Urinary cadmium excretion rates were correlated more strongly with lung and kidney cadmium content than with age or liver cadmium levels. The results suggest that urinary cadmium excretion may be increased in smokers and could provide some estimate of body cadmium burdens in future Australian epidemiological studies.

Does primary medical practitioner involvement with a specialist team improve patient outcomes? A systematic review.

Patients with chronic or complex medical or psychiatric conditions are treated by many practitioners, including general practitioners (GPs). Formal liaison between primary and specialist is often assumed to offer benefits to patients The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of formal liaison of GPs with specialist service providers on patient health outcomes, by conducting a systematic review of the published literature in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library databases using the following search terms family physicians': synonyms of 'patient care planning', 'patient discharge' and 'patient care team'; and synonyms of 'randomised controlled trials'. Seven studies were identified, involving 963 subjects and 899 controls. most health outcomes were unchanged, although some physical and functional health outcomes were improved by formal liaison between GPs and specialist services, particularly among chronic mental illness patients. Some health outcomes worsened during the intervention. Patient retention rates within treatment programmes improved with GP involvement, as did patient satisfaction. Doctor (GP and specialist) behaviour changed, with reports of more rational use of resources and diagnostic tests, improved clinical skills, more frequent use of appropriate treatment strategies, and more frequent clinical behaviours designed to detect disease complications Cost effectiveness could not be determined. In conclusion, formal liaison between GPs and specialist services leaves most physical health outcomes unchanged, but improves functional outcomes in chronically mentally ill patients. It may confer modest long-term health benefits through improvements in patient concordance with treatment programmes and more effective clinical practice.

Benefits, harms and costs of screening mammography in women 70 years and over: a systematic review

Objective: To assess the (i) benefits, (ii) harms and (iii) costs of continuing mammographic screening for women 70 years and over. Data sources and synthesis: (i) We conducted a MEDLINE search (1966 - July 2000) for decision-analytic models estimating life-expectancy gains from screening in older women. The five studies meeting the inclusion criteria were critically appraised using standard criteria. We estimated relative benefit from each model's estimate of effectiveness of screening in older women relative to that in women aged 50-69 years using the same model. (ii) With data from BreastScreen Queensland, we constructed balance sheets of the consequences of screening for women in 10-year age groups (40-49 to 80-89 years), and (iii) we used a validated model to estimate the marginal cost-effectiveness of extending screening to women 70 years and over. Results: For women aged 70-79 years, the relative benefit was estimated as 40%-72%, and 18%-62% with adjustment for the impact of screening on quality of life. For women over 80 years the relative benefit was about a third, and with quality-of-life adjustment only 14%, that in women aged 50-69 years. (ii) Of 10 000 Australian women participating in ongoing screening, about 400 are recalled for further testing, and, depending on age, about 70-112 undergo biopsy and about 19-80 cancers are detected. (iii) Cost-effectiveness estimates for extending the upper age limit for mammographic screening from 69 to 79 years range from $8119 to $27 751 per quality-adjusted life-year saved, which compares favourably with extending screening to women aged 40-49 years (estimated at between $24 000 and $65 000 per life-year saved). Conclusions: Women 70 years and over, in consultation with their healthcare providers, may want to decide for themselves whether to continue mammographic screening. Decision-support materials are needed for women in this age group.

Systematic review of the role of pre-oxygenation for tracheal suctioning in ventilated newborn infants

Pre-oxygenation for endotracheal suctioning for mechanically ventilated infants is routine practice in many neonatal intensive care units. In the present systematic review the evidence to support its use is discussed and the authors conclude that no confident recommendations can be made from the results of this review.