7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Weaponised uranium and adverse health outcomes in Iraq: a systematic review

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The US military first deployed depleted uranium (DU) weapons in Iraq during the Gulf War in 1990 and in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Research into the health impacts of DU has been mired in debate and controversy. Research funded by the US government has denied the health risks posed by DU to the Iraqi population, while opponents have claimed that DU is responsible for increased rates of birth defects and cancers in Iraq. Others assert that the public health impacts of DU weapons remain uncertain. This systematic review identified, appraised and synthesised all human observational studies assessing adverse health outcomes associated with DU exposure among the Iraqi population. To our knowledge, no systematic review has been conducted on the topic previously.

          Methods

          We searched 11 electronic databases for human observational studies published between 1990 and 2020 that measured association between exposure to weaponised uranium and health outcomes (including cancer, birth defects, immune system function and mortality) among the Iraqi population. We assessed risk of bias using the Navigation Guide’s risk of bias tool and rated certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach (PROSPERO: CRD42018108225).

          Results

          Our searches identified 2601 records, of which 28 met our inclusion criteria. We identified five additional eligible reports from other sources. Two articles reported the results of multiple relevant studies; our final set included 33 articles reporting on 36 eligible studies. Most studies (n=30, 83%) reported a positive association between uranium exposure and adverse health outcomes. However, we found that the reviewed body of evidence suffers from a high risk of bias.

          Conclusion

          The available evidence suggests possible associations between exposure to depleted uranium and adverse health outcomes among the Iraqi population. More primary research and the release of missing data are needed to design meaningful health and policy interventions in Iraq.

          Related collections

          Most cited references75

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence.

          This article introduces the approach of GRADE to rating quality of evidence. GRADE specifies four categories-high, moderate, low, and very low-that are applied to a body of evidence, not to individual studies. In the context of a systematic review, quality reflects our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct. In the context of recommendations, quality reflects our confidence that the effect estimates are adequate to support a particular recommendation. Randomized trials begin as high-quality evidence, observational studies as low quality. "Quality" as used in GRADE means more than risk of bias and so may also be compromised by imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness of study results, and publication bias. In addition, several factors can increase our confidence in an estimate of effect. GRADE provides a systematic approach for considering and reporting each of these factors. GRADE separates the process of assessing quality of evidence from the process of making recommendations. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation depend on more than just the quality of evidence. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias.

            In the GRADE approach, randomized trials start as high-quality evidence and observational studies as low-quality evidence, but both can be rated down if a body of evidence is associated with a high risk of publication bias. Even when individual studies included in best-evidence summaries have a low risk of bias, publication bias can result in substantial overestimates of effect. Authors should suspect publication bias when available evidence comes from a number of small studies, most of which have been commercially funded. A number of approaches based on examination of the pattern of data are available to help assess publication bias. The most popular of these is the funnel plot; all, however, have substantial limitations. Publication bias is likely frequent, and caution in the face of early results, particularly with small sample size and number of events, is warranted. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Identifying the PECO: A framework for formulating good questions to explore the association of environmental and other exposures with health outcomes

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Glob Health
                BMJ Glob Health
                bmjgh
                bmjgh
                BMJ Global Health
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2059-7908
                2021
                22 February 2021
                : 6
                : 2
                : e004166
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDepartment of Environmental Health , American University of Beirut , Beirut, Lebanon
                [2 ]departmentNature Conservation Centre , American University of Beirut , Beirut, Lebanon
                [3 ]Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut , Beirut, Lebanon
                [4 ]departmentSaab Medical Library , American University of Beirut , Beirut, Lebanon
                [5 ]departmentDepartment of Anthropology , Rutgers University , New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
                [6 ]departmentDepartment of Internal Medicine , American University of Beirut , Beirut, Lebanon
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Rima R Habib; rima.habib@ 123456aub.edu.lb
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6280-7238
                Article
                bmjgh-2020-004166
                10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004166
                7903104
                33619039
                0a7e77ab-1964-4c29-987e-0415f1e82348
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 12 October 2020
                : 23 December 2020
                : 06 January 2021
                Categories
                Original Research
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                environmental health,public health,systematic review,cancer

                Comments

                Comment on this article