A number of publishers and funders, including PLOS, have recently adopted policies requiring researchers to share the data underlying their results and publications. Such policies help increase the reproducibility of the published literature, as well as make a larger body of data available for reuse and re-analysis. In this study, we evaluate the extent to which authors have complied with this policy by analyzing Data Availability Statements from 47,593 papers published in PLOS ONE between March 2014 (when the policy went into effect) and May 2016. Our analysis shows that compliance with the policy has increased, with a significant decline over time in papers that did not include a Data Availability Statement. However, only about 20% of statements indicate that data are deposited in a repository, which the PLOS policy states is the preferred method. More commonly, authors state that their data are in the paper itself or in the supplemental information, though it is unclear whether these data meet the level of sharing required in the PLOS policy. These findings suggest that additional review of Data Availability Statements or more stringent policies may be needed to increase data sharing.

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this article is to set the context for this special issue of Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness on the allocation of scarce resources in an improvised nuclear device incident. A nuclear detonation occurs when a sufficient amount of fissile material is brought suddenly together to reach critical mass and cause an explosion. Although the chance of a nuclear detonation is thought to be small, the consequences are potentially catastrophic, so planning for an effective medical response is necessary, albeit complex. A substantial nuclear detonation will result in physical effects and a great number of casualties that will require an organized medical response to save lives. With this type of incident, the demand for resources to treat casualties will far exceed what is available. To meet the goal of providing medical care (including symptomatic/palliative care) with fairness as the underlying ethical principle, planning for allocation of scarce resources among all involved sectors needs to be integrated and practiced. With thoughtful and realistic planning, the medical response in the chaotic environment may be made more effective and efficient for both victims and medical responders.(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:S20-S31)

ObjectiveTo systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of radiation associated risks of cardiovascular disease in all groups exposed to radiation with individual radiation dose estimates.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Main outcome measuresExcess relative risk per unit dose (Gy), estimated by restricted maximum likelihood methods.Data sourcesPubMed and Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science Core collection databases.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesDatabases were searched on 6 October 2022, with no limits on date of publication or language. Animal studies and studies without an abstract were excluded.ResultsThe meta-analysis yielded 93 relevant studies. Relative risk per Gy increased for all cardiovascular disease (excess relative risk per Gy of 0.11 (95% confidence interval 0.08 to 0.14)) and for the four major subtypes of cardiovascular disease (ischaemic heart disease, other heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, all other cardiovascular disease). However, interstudy heterogeneity was noted (P<0.05 for all endpoints except for other heart disease), possibly resulting from interstudy variation in unmeasured confounders or effect modifiers, which is markedly reduced if attention is restricted to higher quality studies or those at moderate doses (<0.5 Gy) or low dose rates (<5 mGy/h). For ischaemic heart disease and all cardiovascular disease, risks were larger per unit dose for lower dose (inverse dose effect) and for fractionated exposures (inverse dose fractionation effect). Population based excess absolute risks are estimated for a number of national populations (Canada, England and Wales, France, Germany, Japan, USA) and range from 2.33% per Gy (95% confidence interval 1.69% to 2.98%) for England and Wales to 3.66% per Gy (2.65% to 4.68%) for Germany, largely reflecting the underlying rates of cardiovascular disease mortality in these populations. Estimated risk of mortality from cardiovascular disease are generally dominated by cerebrovascular disease (around 0.94-1.26% per Gy), with the next largest contribution from ischaemic heart disease (around 0.30-1.20% per Gy).ConclusionsResults provide evidence supporting a causal association between radiation exposure and cardiovascular disease at high dose, and to a lesser extent at low dose, with some indications of differences in risk between acute and chronic exposures, which require further investigation. The observed heterogeneity complicates a causal interpretation of these findings, although this heterogeneity is much reduced if only higher quality studies or those at moderate doses or low dose rates are considered. Studies are needed to assess in more detail modifications of radiation effect by lifestyle and medical risk factors.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020202036

Background: Outdoor air pollution is a known lung carcinogen, but research investigating the association between particulate matter (PM) and gastrointestinal (GI) cancers is limited. Objectives: We sought to review the epidemiologic literature on outdoor PM and GI cancers and to put the body of studies into context regarding potential for bias and overall strength of evidence. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies that evaluated the association of fine PM [PM with an aerodynamic diameter of ( )] and (aerodynamic diameter ) with GI cancer incidence or mortality in adults. We searched five databases for original research published from 1980 to 2021 in English and summarized findings for studies employing a quantitative estimate of exposure overall and by specific GI cancer subtypes. We evaluated the risk of bias of individual studies and the overall quality and strength of the evidence according to the Navigation Guide methodology, which is tailored for environmental health research. Results: Twenty studies met inclusion criteria and included participants from 14 countries; nearly all were of cohort design. All studies identified positive associations between PM exposure and risk of at least one GI cancer, although in 3 studies these relationships were not statistically significant. Three of 5 studies estimated associations with and satisfied inclusion criteria for meta-analysis, but each assessed a different GI cancer and were therefore excluded. In the random-effects meta-analysis of 13 studies, exposure was associated with an increased risk of GI cancer overall [ ; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.24]. The most robust associations were observed for liver cancer ( ; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.56) and colorectal cancer ( ; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.62), for which all studies identified an increased risk. We rated most studies with “probably low” risk of bias and the overall body of evidence as “moderate” quality with “limited” evidence for this association. We based this determination on the generally positive, but inconsistently statistically significant, effect estimates reported across a small number of studies. Conclusion: We concluded there is some evidence of associations between and GI cancers, with the strongest evidence for liver and colorectal cancers. Although there is biologic plausibility for these relationships, studies of any one cancer site were few and there remain only a small number overall. Studies in geographic areas with high GI cancer burden, evaluation of the impact of different PM exposure assessment approaches on observed associations, and investigation of cancer subtypes and specific chemical components of PM are important areas of interest for future research. https://doi.org/...