Methods for the Study of Marine Biodiversity

Recognition of the threats to biodiversity and its importance to society has led to calls for globally coordinated sampling of trends in marine ecosystems. As a step to defining such efforts, we review current methods of collecting and managing marine biodiversity data. A fundamental component of marine biodiversity is knowing what, where, and when species are present. However, monitoring methods are invariably biased in what taxa, ecological guilds, and body sizes they collect. In addition, the data need to be placed, and/or mapped, into an environmental context. Thus a suite of methods will be needed to encompass representative components of biodiversity in an ecosystem. Some sampling methods can damage habitat and kill species, including unnecessary bycatch. Less destructive alternatives are preferable, especially in conservation areas, such as photography, hydrophones, tagging, acoustics, artificial substrata, light-traps, hook and line, and live-traps. Here we highlight examples of operational international sampling programmes and data management infrastructures, notably the Continuous Plankton Recorder, Reef Life Survey, and detection of Harmful Algal Blooms and MarineGEO. Data management infrastructures include the World Register of Marine Species for species nomenclature and attributes, the Ocean Biogeographic Information System for distribution data, Marine Regions for maps, and Global Marine Environmental Datasets for global environmental data. Existing national sampling programmes, such as fishery trawl surveys and intertidal surveys, may provide a global perspective if their data can be integrated to provide useful information. Less utilised and emerging sampling methods, such as artificial substrata, light-traps, microfossils and eDNA also hold promise for sampling the less studied components of biodiversity. All of these initiatives need to develop international standards and protocols, and long-term plans for their governance and support.published_or_final_versio

Fraction of Inspired Oxygen During General Anesthesia for Non-Cardiac Surgery:Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the effects of a high versus a low intraoperative fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO(2)) in adults undergoing general anesthesia. This systematic review and meta‐analysis investigated the effect of a high versus a low FiO(2) on postoperative outcomes. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched on March 22, 2022 for randomized clinical trials investigating the effect of different FiO(2) levels in adults undergoing general anesthesia for non‐cardiac surgery. Two investigators independently reviewed studies for relevance, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta‐analyses were performed for relevant outcomes, and potential effect measure modification was assessed in subgroup analyses and meta‐regression. The evidence certainty was evaluated using GRADE. RESULTS: This review included 25 original trials investigating the effect of a high (mostly 80%) versus a low (mostly 30%) FiO(2). Risk of bias was intermediate for all trials. A high FiO(2) did not result in a significant reduction in surgical site infections (OR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.81–1.02 [p = .10]). No effect was found for all other included outcomes, including mortality (OR = 1.27, 95% CI: 0.90–1.79 [p = .18]) and hospital length of stay (mean difference = 0.03 days, 95% CI −0.25 to 0.30 [p = .84). Results from subgroup analyses and meta‐regression did not identify any clear effect modifiers across outcomes. The certainty of evidence (GRADE) was rated as low for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In adults undergoing general anesthesia for non‐cardiac surgery, a high FiO(2) did not improve outcomes including surgical site infections, length of stay, or mortality. However, the certainty of the evidence was assessed as low

Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery:a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: During general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery, there remain knowledge gaps regarding the effect of goal-directed haemodynamic therapy on patient-centred outcomes. METHODS: Included clinical trials investigated goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia in adults undergoing noncardiac surgery and reported at least one patient-centred postoperative outcome. PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant articles on March 8, 2021. Two investigators performed abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and bias assessment. The primary outcomes were mortality and hospital length of stay, whereas 15 postoperative complications were included based on availability. From a main pool of comparable trials, meta-analyses were performed on trials with homogenous outcome definitions. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). RESULTS: The main pool consisted of 76 trials with intermediate risk of bias for most outcomes. Overall, goal-directed haemodynamic therapy might reduce mortality (odds ratio=0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.09) and shorten length of stay (mean difference=–0.72 days; 95% CI, –1.10 to –0.35) but with low certainty in the evidence. For both outcomes, larger effects favouring goal-directed haemodynamic therapy were seen in abdominal surgery, very high-risk surgery, and using targets based on preload variation by the respiratory cycle. However, formal tests for subgroup differences were not statistically significant. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy decreased risk of several postoperative outcomes, but only infectious outcomes and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia might decrease mortality, hospital length of stay, and several postoperative complications. Only infectious postoperative complications and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty in the evidence

Relationship between the Clinical Frailty Scale and short-term mortality in patients ≥ 80 years old acutely admitted to the ICU: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is frequently used to measure frailty in critically ill adults. There is wide variation in the approach to analysing the relationship between the CFS score and mortality after admission to the ICU. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of modelling approach on the association between the CFS score and short-term mortality and quantify the prognostic value of frailty in this context. METHODS: We analysed data from two multicentre prospective cohort studies which enrolled intensive care unit patients ≥ 80 years old in 26 countries. The primary outcome was mortality within 30-days from admission to the ICU. Logistic regression models for both ICU and 30-day mortality included the CFS score as either a categorical, continuous or dichotomous variable and were adjusted for patient's age, sex, reason for admission to the ICU, and admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. RESULTS: The median age in the sample of 7487 consecutive patients was 84 years (IQR 81-87). The highest fraction of new prognostic information from frailty in the context of 30-day mortality was observed when the CFS score was treated as either a categorical variable using all original levels of frailty or a nonlinear continuous variable and was equal to 9% using these modelling approaches (p < 0.001). The relationship between the CFS score and mortality was nonlinear (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Knowledge about a patient's frailty status adds a substantial amount of new prognostic information at the moment of admission to the ICU. Arbitrary simplification of the CFS score into fewer groups than originally intended leads to a loss of information and should be avoided. Trial registration NCT03134807 (VIP1), NCT03370692 (VIP2)