BERMS, ERMS and WORMS: Community tools to facilitate our knowledge of marine biodiversity

The World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) celebrated its 10th anniversary in 2017. Over thepast ten years, the content of WoRMS has grown steadily, currently containing more than 242,000accepted marine species names. WoRMS is therefore unique: there is no comparable globaldatabase for marine species, which is driven by a large, global expert community, supported by aData Management Team and can rely on a permanent host institute, dedicated to keeping WoRMSonline. The system has seen several user applications, including facilitating local and regionalmarine species data management and data analysis, but also answering big scientific questions forexample about the estimated number exiting marine species, providing a metric for how much wedo and do not know about life in the oceans.One of the unique features of WoRMS is that it is containing and integrating over 100 global, 12regional and 4 thematic species databases integrated within a common taxonomy. This allowsregional, thematic or ecological expert groups to focus on specific contents of the database,providing additional information and creating community ownership of a specific subcomponentof WoRMS.A regional example of WoRMS is BeRMS, the Belgian Register of Marine Species. Published in 2010,this register enabled to provide an inventory of all marine species encountered within the BelgianExclusive Economic Zone, including the intertidal zone.Now, a major update of the Belgian Census has started. A major literature review, dataminingactivities of marine biogeographic databases such as the European Biogeographic InformationSystem (EurOBIS) and additional species surveys are planned in order to complete this register,allowing to provide a nearly complete assessment of the Belgian marine biodiversity

Women's views and postpartum follow-up in the CHIPS Trial (Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study).

OBJECTIVE: To compare women's views about blood pressure (BP) control in CHIPS (Control of Hypertension In Pregnancy Study) (NCT01192412). DESIGN: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of questionnaire responses. SETTING: International randomised trial (94 sites, 15 countries). POPULATION/SAMPLE: 911 (92.9%) women randomised to 'tight' (target diastolic blood pressure, 85mmHg) or 'less tight' (target diastolic blood pressure, 100mmHg) who completed questionnaires. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered at ∼6-12 weeks postpartum regarding post-discharge morbidity and views about trial participation. Questionnaires were administered by the site co-ordinator, and contact was made by phone, home or clinic visit; rarely, data was collected from medical records. Quantitative analyses were Chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, mixed effects multinomial logistic regression to adjust for confounders, and p<0.001 for statistical significance. NVivo software was used for thematic analysis of women's views. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Satisfaction, measured as willingness to have the same treatment in another pregnancy or recommend that treatment to a friend. RESULTS: Among the 533 women in 'tight' (N=265) vs. 'less tight' (N=268) control who provided comments for qualitative analysis, women in 'tight' (vs. 'less tight') control made fewer positive comments about the amount of medication taken (5 vs. 28 women, respectively) and intensity of BP monitoring (7 vs. 17, respectively). However, this did not translate into less willingness to either have the same treatment in another pregnancy (434, 95.8% vs. 423, 92.4%, respectively; p=0.14) or recommend that treatment to a friend (435, 96.0% and 428, 93.4%, respectively; p=0.17). Importantly, although satisfaction remained high among women with an adverse outcome, those in 'tight' control who suffered an adverse outcome (vs. those who did not) were not consistently less satisfied, whereas this was not the case among women in 'less tight' control among whom satisfaction was consistently lower for the CHIPS primary outcome (p<0.001), severe hypertension (p≤0.01), and pre-eclampsia (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Women in 'tight' (vs. 'less tight') control were equally satisfied with their care, and more so in the face of adverse perinatal or maternal outcomes