Systematic literature review of instruments that measure the healthfulness of food and beverages sold in informal food outlets

BACKGROUND

Informal food outlets, defined as vendors who rarely have access to water and toilets, much less shelter and electricity, are a common component of the food environment, particularly in many non-Western countries. The purpose of this study was to review available instruments that measure the quality and particularly the healthfulness of food and beverages sold within informal food outlets.

METHODS

PubMed, LILACS, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were used. Articles were included if they reported instruments that measured the availability or type of healthy and unhealthy foods and beverages by informal food outlets, were written in English or Spanish, and published between January 1, 2010, and July 31, 2020. Two trained researchers reviewed the title, abstract and full text of selected articles; discrepancies were solved by two independent researchers. In addition, the list of references for selected articles was reviewed for any additional articles of relevance. The quality of published articles and documents was evaluated using JBI Critical appraisal checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies.

RESULTS

We identified 1078 articles of which 14 were included after applying the selection criteria. Three additional articles were considered after reviewing the references from the selected articles. From the final 17 articles, 13 measurement tools were identified. Most of the instruments were used in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Products were classified as healthy/unhealthy or produce/non-produce or processed/unprocessed based on availability and type. Six studies reported psychometric tests, whereas one was tested within the informal food sector.

CONCLUSIONS

Few instruments can measure the healthfulness of food and beverages sold in informal food outlets, of which the most valid and reliable have been used to measure formal food outlets as well. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an instrument that manages to measure, specifically, the elements available within an informal one. These actions are extremely important to better understand the food environment that is a central contributor to poor diets that are increasingly associated with the obesity and Non-communicable disease (NCD) pandemic.

Revisión rápida: evidencia de transmisión por Covid-19 e infecciones respiratorias agudas similares en espacios públicos abiertos

 Objetivo. Describir la evidencia disponible sobre la trans-misión por Covid-19 e infecciones respiratorias agudas simi-lares al Covid-19 en espacios públicos abiertos. Material y métodos. La búsqueda incluyó 4 926 artículos en inglés de los años 2000 a 2020. Seis investigadores revisaron el título y el resumen de los artículos de Embase y PubMed; dos inves-tigadores revisaron los de medRxiv. Todos los investigadores revisaron textos completos y otros resolvieron las discre-pancias. Resultados. De los 21 artículos seleccionados, se observó que la presencia de virus en superficies públicas, aguas residuales y áreas exteriores no fue indicativa de trans-misión. No obstante, se observó que el uso de cubrebocas, el lavado de manos, el distanciamiento social, no asistir a eventos masivos y la movilidad individual a espacios públicos podría ayudar a reducir el riesgo de transmisión. Conclusión. Esta información podría coadyuvar a generar recomendaciones en salud pública, sin embargo, es recomendable actualizar esta revisión conforme avance la evidencia científica.

Comparative accuracy of glucose monitors

BACKGROUND

Self-monitoring of blood glucose levels has become an important instrument for the management of patients with diabetes mellitus. Both patients and physicians expect that the monitors will provide reliable results. Numerous environmental, physiologic, and operational factors can affect system performance, yielding results that are inaccurate or unpredictable.

METHODS

This study examined the effect of one factor--high altitude--on the performance of seven blood glucose monitoring systems. The following monitors were compared: two One Touch II; two One Touch Basic; two Reflolux II (Accu-Chec in the USA); two Glucometer 3; one Glucometer 2, and one Accutrend Alpha. Double blood glucose level values were compared with a controlled reference laboratory test value, which was unknown to the investigator until the end of the study because the study was double blind. Blood glucose values were obtained using each of the monitors in 200 patients; 150 with diabetes mellitus, and 50 healthy subjects.

RESULTS

The One Touch monitors were the only monitors that reported adjusted straight lines (Y = a+bX) that were very similar for all three techniques. In addition, these adjusted straight lines are those closest to the ideal line, Y = X. These same monitors were the only ones that did not reject the null hypothesis Ho: a = 0. The relative deviation index at the 20% level was less than 3.5% for the One Touch II and One Touch Basic monitors; for the rest of the monitors, the index was over 14%. The clinically accepted EGA region was similar for all study monitors.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the One Touch II and One Touch Basic Monitors showed greater accuracy in comparison to the other devices. The evaluation of the clinically acceptable region shows practical reliability for all of the monitors used.