Disaster Medicine: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature From 2016.

Objective: The Society of Academic Emergency Medicine Disaster Medicine Interest Group, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response - Technical Resources, Assistance Center, and Information Exchange (ASPR TRACIE) team, and the National Institutes of Health Library searched disaster medicine peer-reviewed and gray literature to identify, review, and disseminate the most important new research in this field for academics and practitioners.

Methods: MEDLINE/PubMed and Scopus databases were searched with key words. Additional gray literature and focused hand search were performed.

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) Science and the CBRNE Science Medical Operations Science Support Expert (CMOSSE).

A national need is to prepare for and respond to accidental or intentional disasters categorized as chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive (CBRNE). These incidents require specific subject-matter expertise, yet have commonalities. We identify 7 core elements comprising CBRNE science that require integration for effective preparedness planning and public health and medical response and recovery.

SMFM Special Statement: State of the science on multifetal gestations: unique considerations and importance.

We sought to review the state of the science for research on multiple gestations. A literature search was performed with the use of PubMed for studies to quantify the representation of multiple gestations for a sample period (2012-2016) that were limited to phase III and IV randomized controlled trials, that were written in English, and that addressed at least 1 of 4 major pregnancy complications: fetal growth restriction or small-for-gestational-age fetus, gestational diabetes mellitus, preeclampsia, and preterm delivery. Of the 226 studies that are included in the analysis, multiple pregnancies were most represented in studies of preterm delivery: 17% of trials recruited both singleton and multiple pregnancies; another 18% of trials recruited only multiple pregnancies.

Infant milk-feeding practices and diabetes outcomes in offspring: a systematic review.

Background: During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the US Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these populations.

Objectives: The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relation of 1) never versus ever feeding human milk, 2) shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding, 3) shorter versus longer durations of exclusive human milk feeding, and 4) feeding a lower versus higher intensity of human milk to mixed-fed infants with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in offspring.

Methods: The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team conducted systematic reviews with external experts.

Infant milk-feeding practices and diagnosed celiac disease and inflammatory bowel disease in offspring: a systematic review.

Background: During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the USDA and US Department of Health and Human Services initiated an evidence review on diet and health in these populations.

Objective: The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relationships of never versus ever feeding human milk, shorter versus longer durations of any and exclusive human milk feeding, and feeding a lower versus a higher intensity of human milk to mixed-fed infants with diagnosed celiac disease and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Methods: The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team (formerly called the Nutrition Evidence Library) conducted systematic reviews with external experts.

Infant milk-feeding practices and cardiovascular disease outcomes in offspring: a systematic review.

Background: During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the US Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these populations.

Objectives: The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relation of 1) never versus ever feeding human milk, 2) shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding, 3) shorter versus longer durations of exclusive human milk feeding, and 4) lower versus higher intensities of human milk fed to mixed-fed infants with intermediate and endpoint cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes in offspring.

Methods: The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team conducted systematic reviews with external experts.

Infant milk-feeding practices and childhood leukemia: a systematic review.

Background: During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the US Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these populations.

Objectives: The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relation of 1) never versus ever feeding human milk, 2) shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding, 3) shorter versus longer durations of exclusive human milk feeding, and 4) feeding a lower versus higher intensity of human milk to mixed-fed infants with acute childhood leukemia, generally, and acute lymphoblastic leukemia, specifically.

Methods: The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team conducted systematic reviews with external experts.

Infant milk-feeding practices and food allergies, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and asthma throughout the life span: a systematic review.

Background: During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the USDA and Department of Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these populations.

Objectives: The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relation of 1) never versus ever feeding human milk, 2) shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding, 3) shorter versus longer durations of exclusive human milk feeding prior to infant formula introduction, 4) feeding a lower versus higher intensity of human milk to mixed-fed infants, and 5) feeding a higher intensity of human milk by bottle versus breast with food allergies, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and asthma.

Methods: The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team conducted systematic reviews with external experts.