Viral hepatitis in all its forms is a major public health problem throughout the world, affecting several hundreds of millions of people. Viral hepatitis is a cause of considerable morbidity and mortality both from acute infection and chronic sequelae which include, in the case of hepatitis B, C and D, chronic active hepatitis and cirrhosis. Hepatocellular carcinoma, which is one of the 10 commonest cancers worldwide, is closely associated with hepatitis B and, at least in some regions of the world, with hepatitis C virus. This timely monograph is a distillation of knowledge of hepatitis B, C and D, based on a review of 1000 studies by a small group of scientists. (It is interesting to note in passing that some 5000 papers on viral hepatitis are published annually in the world literature.) The epidemiological, clinical and experimental data on the association between infection with hepatitis B virus and primary liver cancer in humans are reviewed in a readable and succinct format. The available information on hepatitis C and progression to chronic infection is also evaluated and it is concluded (perhaps a little prematurely) that hepatitis C virus is carcinogenic. However, it is concluded that hepatitis D virus, an unusual virus with a number of similarities to certain plant viral satellites and viroids, cannot be classified as a human carcinogen. There are some minor criticisms: there are few illustrations and some complex tabulations (for example, Table 6) and no subject index. A cumulative cross index to IARC Monographs is of little value and occupies nearly 30 pages. This small volume is a useful addition to the overwhelming literature on viral hepatitis, and the presentation is similar to the excellent World Health Organisation Technical Reports series on the subject published in the past. It is strongly recommended as a readable up-to-date summary of a complex subject; and at a cost of 65 Sw.fr (approximately £34) is excellent value. A J ZUCKERMAN

https://jcp.bmj.com/content/jclinpath/48/7/691.1.full.pdf

IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans

Objective. —To encourage increased participation in physical activity among Americans of all ages by issuing a public health recommendation on the types and amounts of physical activity needed for health promotion and disease prevention. Participants. —A planning committee of five scientists was established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine to organize a workshop. This committee selected 15 other workshop discussants on the basis of their research expertise in issues related to the health implications of physical activity. Several relevant professional or scientific organizations and federal agencies also were represented. Evidence. —The panel of experts reviewed the pertinent physiological, epidemiologic, and clinical evidence, including primary research articles and recent review articles. Consensus Process. —Major issues related to physical activity and health were outlined, and selected members of the expert panel drafted sections of the paper from this outline. A draft manuscript was prepared by the planning committee and circulated to the full panel in advance of the 2-day workshop. During the workshop, each section of the manuscript was reviewed by the expert panel. Primary attention was given to achieving group consensus concerning the recommended types and amounts of physical activity. A concise "public health message" was developed to express the recommendations of the panel. During the ensuing months, the consensus statement was further reviewed and revised and was formally endorsed by both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine. Conclusion. —Every US adult should accumulate 30 minutes or more of moderate-intensity physical activity on most, preferably all, days of the week. ( JAMA . 1995;273:402-407)

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/JAMA/articlepdf/386766/jama_273_5_029.pdf

Physical Activity and Public Health: A Recommendation From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine

In 1965, Austin Bradford Hill published the article "The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?" in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine. In the article, Hill describes nine criteria to determine if an environmental factor, especially a condition or hazard in a work environment, causes an illness. The article arose from an inaugural presidential address Hill gave at the 1965 meeting of the Section of Occupational Medicine of the Royal Society of Medicine in London, England. The criteria he established in the article became known as the Bradford Hill criteria and the medical community refers to them when determining whether an environmental condition causes an illness. The criteria outlined in "The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?" help identify the causes of many diseases, including cancers of the reproductive system.

The environment and disease: association or causation?

https://cobe.paginas.ufsc.br/files/2014/10/GRADE-guidelines-32.pdf

GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence

In 2004, the first American Heart Association scientific statement on “Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease” concluded that exposure to particulate matter (PM) air pollution contributes to card...

https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/downloads/p2676x621

Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease An Update to the Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

In 1965, Sir Austin Bradford Hill offered his thoughts on: “What aspects of [an] association should we especially consider before deciding that the most likely interpretation of it is causation?” He proposed nine means for reasoning about the association, which he named as: strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, and analogy. In this paper, we look at what motivated Bradford Hill to propose we focus on these nine features. We contrast Bradford Hill’s approach with a currently fashionable framework for reasoning about statistical associations – the Common Task Framework. And then suggest why following Bradford Hill, 50+ years on, is still extraordinarily reasonable.

Hill Ab

Papers

The environment and disease: association or causation?

The environment and disease: association or causation?