Association of respiratory symptoms and lung function with occupation in the multinational Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease (BOLD) study

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been associated with exposures in the workplace. We aimed to assess the association of respiratory symptoms and lung function with occupation in the Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease study. Methods We analysed cross-sectional data from 28 823 adults (≥40 years) in 34 countries. We considered 11 occupations and grouped them by likelihood of exposure to organic dusts, inorganic dusts and fumes. The association of chronic cough, chronic phlegm, wheeze, dyspnoea, forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/FVC with occupation was assessed, per study site, using multivariable regression. These estimates were then meta-analysed. Sensitivity analyses explored differences between sexes and gross national income. Results Overall, working in settings with potentially high exposure to dusts or fumes was associated with respiratory symptoms but not lung function differences. The most common occupation was farming. Compared to people not working in any of the 11 considered occupations, those who were farmers for ≥20 years were more likely to have chronic cough (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.19–1.94), wheeze (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.16–1.63) and dyspnoea (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.53–2.20), but not lower FVC (β=0.02 L, 95% CI −0.02–0.06 L) or lower FEV1/FVC (β=0.04%, 95% CI −0.49–0.58%). Some findings differed by sex and gross national income. Conclusion At a population level, the occupational exposures considered in this study do not appear to be major determinants of differences in lung function, although they are associated with more respiratory symptoms. Because not all work settings were included in this study, respiratory surveillance should still be encouraged among high-risk dusty and fume job workers, especially in low- and middle-income countries.publishedVersio

Correction to: Two years later: Is the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still having an impact on emergency surgery? An international cross-sectional survey among WSES members

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is still ongoing and a major challenge for health care services worldwide. In the first WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey, a strong negative impact on emergency surgery (ES) had been described already early in the pandemic situation. However, the knowledge is limited about current effects of the pandemic on patient flow through emergency rooms, daily routine and decision making in ES as well as their changes over time during the last two pandemic years. This second WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey investigates the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on ES during the course of the pandemic. Methods: A web survey had been distributed to medical specialists in ES during a four-week period from January 2022, investigating the impact of the pandemic on patients and septic diseases both requiring ES, structural problems due to the pandemic and time-to-intervention in ES routine. Results: 367 collaborators from 59 countries responded to the survey. The majority indicated that the pandemic still significantly impacts on treatment and outcome of surgical emergency patients (83.1% and 78.5%, respectively). As reasons, the collaborators reported decreased case load in ES (44.7%), but patients presenting with more prolonged and severe diseases, especially concerning perforated appendicitis (62.1%) and diverticulitis (57.5%). Otherwise, approximately 50% of the participants still observe a delay in time-to-intervention in ES compared with the situation before the pandemic. Relevant causes leading to enlarged time-to-intervention in ES during the pandemic are persistent problems with in-hospital logistics, lacks in medical staff as well as operating room and intensive care capacities during the pandemic. This leads not only to the need for triage or transferring of ES patients to other hospitals, reported by 64.0% and 48.8% of the collaborators, respectively, but also to paradigm shifts in treatment modalities to non-operative approaches reported by 67.3% of the participants, especially in uncomplicated appendicitis, cholecystitis and multiple-recurrent diverticulitis. Conclusions: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still significantly impacts on care and outcome of patients in ES. Well-known problems with in-hospital logistics are not sufficiently resolved by now; however, medical staff shortages and reduced capacities have been dramatically aggravated over last two pandemic years

Author Correction: Drivers of seedling establishment success in dryland restoration efforts

1 Pág. Correción errata.In the version of this Article originally published, the surname of author Tina Parkhurst was incorrectly written as Schroeder. This has now been corrected.Peer reviewe

Cohort Profile: Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease (BOLD) study

The Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease (BOLD) study was established to assess the prevalence of chronic airflow obstruction, a key characteristic of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and its risk factors in adults (≥40 years) from general populations across the world. The baseline study was conducted between 2003 and 2016, in 41 sites across Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, the Caribbean and Oceania, and collected high-quality pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry from 28 828 participants. The follow-up study was conducted between 2019 and 2021, in 18 sites across Africa, Asia, Europe and the Caribbean. At baseline, there were in these sites 12 502 participants with high-quality spirometry. A total of 6452 were followed up, with 5936 completing the study core questionnaire. Of these, 4044 also provided high-quality pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry. On both occasions, the core questionnaire covered information on respiratory symptoms, doctor diagnoses, health care use, medication use and ealth status, as well as potential risk factors. Information on occupation, environmental exposures and diet was also collected

Drivers of seedling establishment success in dryland restoration efforts.

Restoration of degraded drylands is urgently needed to mitigate climate change, reverse desertification and secure livelihoods for the two billion people who live in these areas. Bold global targets have been set for dryland restoration to restore millions of hectares of degraded land. These targets have been questioned as overly ambitious, but without a global evaluation of successes and failures it is impossible to gauge feasibility. Here we examine restoration seeding outcomes across 174 sites on six continents, encompassing 594,065 observations of 671 plant species. Our findings suggest reasons for optimism. Seeding had a positive impact on species presence: in almost a third of all treatments, 100% of species seeded were growing at first monitoring. However, dryland restoration is risky: 17% of projects failed, with no establishment of any seeded species, and consistent declines were found in seeded species as projects matured. Across projects, higher seeding rates and larger seed sizes resulted in a greater probability of recruitment, with further influences on species success including site aridity, taxonomic identity and species life form. Our findings suggest that investigations examining these predictive factors will yield more effective and informed restoration decision-making.EEA Santa CruzFil: Shackelford, Nancy. University of Victoria. School of environmental Studies; Canadá.Fil: Shackelford, Nancy. University of Colorado. Ecology and evolutionary biology; Estados UnidosFil: Paterno, Gustavo B. Universidade Federal do rio Grande do Norte. Departamento de ecología; Brasil.Fil: Paterno, Gustavo B. Technical University of Munich. Department of ecology and ecosystem management. Restoration ecology research Group; AlemaniaFil: Winkler, Daniel E. Southwest biological Science Center. US Geological Survey; Estados UnidosFil: Erickson, Todd E. The University of Western Australia School of biological Sciences; Australia.Fil: Erickson, Todd E. Kings park Science. Department of biodiversity Conservation and Attractions; Australia.Fil: Leger, Elizabeth A. University of Nevada. Department of Biology; Estados UnidosFil: Svejcar, Lauren N. Eastern Oregon Agricultural research Center. USDA Agricultural research Service; Estados UnidosFil: Breed , Martin F. Flinders University. College of Science and engineering; Australia.Fil: Faist, Akasha M. New Mexico State University. Department of Animal and range Sciences; Estados UnidosFil: Harrison, Peter A. University of Tasmania. School of Natural Sciences and ArC training. Centre for Forest Value; Australia.Fil: Curran, Michael F. University of Wyoming. Program in ecology; Estados UnidosFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Suding, Katharine L. University of Colorado. Ecology and evolutionary biology; Estados UnidosFil: Suding, Katharine L. University of Colorado. Institute of Arctic and Alpine research; Estados Unido

What is a biocrust? A refined, contemporary definition for a broadening research community

Studies of biological soil crusts (biocrusts) have proliferated over the last few decades. The biocrust literature has broadened, with more studies assessing and describing the function of a variety of biocrust communities in a broad range of biomes and habitats and across a large spectrum of disciplines, and also by the incorporation of biocrusts into global perspectives and biogeochemical models. As the number of biocrust researchers increases, along with the scope of soil communities defined as ‘biocrust’, it is worth asking whether we all share a clear, universal, and fully articulated definition of what constitutes a biocrust. In this review, we synthesize the literature with the views of new and experienced biocrust researchers, to provide a refined and fully elaborated definition of biocrusts. In doing so, we illustrate the ecological relevance and ecosystem services provided by them. We demonstrate that biocrusts are defined by four distinct elements: physical structure, functional characteristics, habitat, and taxonomic composition. We describe outgroups, which have some, but not all, of the characteristics necessary to be fully consistent with our definition and thus would not be considered biocrusts. We also summarize the wide variety of different types of communities that fall under our definition of biocrusts, in the process of highlighting their global distribution. Finally, we suggest the universal use of the Belnap, Büdel & Lange definition, with minor modifications: Biological soil crusts (biocrusts) result from an intimate association between soil particles and differing proportions of photoautotrophic (e.g. cyanobacteria, algae, lichens, bryophytes) and heterotrophic (e.g. bacteria, fungi, archaea) organisms, which live within, or immediately on top of, the uppermost millimetres of soil. Soil particles are aggregated through the presence and activity of these often extremotolerant biota that desiccate regularly, and the resultant living crust covers the surface of the ground as a coherent layer. With this detailed definition of biocrusts, illustrating their ecological functions and widespread distribution, we hope to stimulate interest in biocrust research and inform various stakeholders (e.g. land managers, land users) on their overall importance to ecosystem and Earth system functioning.This work was conducted as part of the “Completing the dryland puzzle: creating a predictive framework for biological soil crust function and response to climate change” Working Group supported by the John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis, funded by the U.S. Geological Survey. V.B.C. is funded by the National Science Foundation (DEB-1844531). F.T.M. acknowledges support from the European Research Council (ERC Grant Agreement 647038 [BIODESERT]) and Generalitat Valenciana (CIDEGENT/2018/041). K.E.Y. and A.D.-N. were supported by the National Science Foundation (#1557162 & #1557135). E.R.-C. was supported by the Ramon y Cajal fellowship (RYC2020-030762-I) and the REBIOARID Project (2018-101921-B-I00) founded by FEDER/Ministerio de Ciencia e Inovacion-Agencia estatal de investigacion, and the BIOCOST project (Conservación debiocostras como estrategia de adaptación al cambio climático: alineando avances científicos con la gestión y sociedad) supported by the Biodiversity Foundation of the Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge. S.C.R. was supported by USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. E.H.-S. acknowledges financial support from CONACYT grant SEP-CB-2015-01-251388