Ebola: What do you need to know? Archives des Maladies Professionnelles et de l'Environnement 2015; 76: 40-42 (in French). 5 Descatha A, Dolveck F, Salomon J. A contingency plan for healthcare worker protection in the event of a flu pandemic.

Background and Purpose— Long working hours (LWHs) are a potential risk factor for stroke. The aim of this study was to investigate this association in a large general population cohort. Methods— We used the French population-based cohort, CONSTANCES (Cohorte des Consultants des Centres d'Examens de Santé), to retrieve information on age, sex, smoking, and working hours from the baseline, self-administered questionnaire. Other cardiovascular risk factors and previous occurrence of stroke were taken from a parallel medical interview. We defined LWH as working time >10 hours daily for at least 50 days per year. Participants with primarily part-time jobs were excluded as were those with stroke before LWH exposure. We used logistic models to estimate the association between LWH and stroke, stratified by age, sex, and occupation. In additional modeling, we excluded subjects whose stroke occurred within 5 years of the first reported work exposure. Results— Among the 143 592 participants in the analyses, there were 1224 (0.9%) strokes, 42 542 (29.6%) reported LWH, and 14 481 (10.1%) reported LWH for 10 years or more. LWH was associated with an increased risk of stroke: adjusted odds ratio of 1.29 (95% CI, 1.11–1.49). Being exposed to LWH for 10 years or more was more strongly associated with stroke, adjusted odds ratio of 1.45 (95% CI, 1.21–1.74). The association showed no differences between men and women but was stronger in white-collar workers under 50 years of age. Conclusions— This large analysis reveals a significant association between stroke and exposure to LWH for 10 years or more. The findings are relevant for individual and global prevention.

Introduction: Systematic reviews are routinely used to synthesize current science and evaluate the evidential strength and quality of resulting recommendations. For specific events, such as rare acute poisonings or preliminary reports of new drugs, we posit that case reports/studies and case series (human subjects research with no control group) may provide important evidence for systematic reviews. Our aim, therefore, is to present a protocol that uses rigorous selection criteria, to distinguish high quality case reports/studies and case series for inclusion in systematic reviews.Methods: This protocol will adapt the existing Navigation Guide methodology for specific inclusion of case studies. The usual procedure for systematic reviews will be followed. Case reports/studies and case series will be specified in the search strategy and included in separate sections. Data from these sources will be extracted and where possible, quantitatively synthesized. Criteria for integrating cases reports/studies and case series into the overall body of evidence are that these studies will need to be well-documented, scientifically rigorous, and follow ethical practices. The instructions and standards for evaluating risk of bias will be based on the Navigation Guide. The risk of bias, quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations will be assessed by two independent review teams that are blinded to each other.Conclusion: This is a protocol specified for systematic reviews that use case reports/studies and case series to evaluate the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in disciplines like clinical toxicology, where case reports/studies are the norm.