Trichodina gobii (Ciliophora: Trichodinidae) on whiting Merlangius merlangus with a checklist from Turkish and Russian coasts of the Black Sea

Trichodina gobii was identified during a parasitological survey conducted on the parasite fauna of whiting, Merlangius merlangus at both Sinop (Turkey) and Sevastopol (Russia) coasts of the Black Sea in the period between May 2011 and March 2014. Its morphological characteristics and taxonomic affinities with other previous reports on this species were revealed. The ecological occurrences in relation with seasonality, host length and sex of whiting were also determined. Parasitological indices were calculated from 690 and 423 whiting specimens collected in Sinop and Sevastopol, respectively. Overall infestation prevalence (%) and mean intensity and mean abundance values were 45.6%, 70.1±10.4 and 32.0±4.9, respectively, in Sinop, while they were 6.9%, 29.2±10.1 and 2.0±0.8 in Sevastopol. The taxonomic affinities to other trichodinid species and ecological data are discussed in detail

Deindustrialization in cities of the global south

Recent research by economists has shown that deindustrialization is more severe in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America than it ever was in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Nevertheless, most research on deindustrialization is focused on the former centres of Fordist manufacturing in the industrial heartlands of the North Atlantic. In short, there is a mismatch between where deindustrialization is researched and where it is occurring, and the objective of this paper is to shift the geographical focus of research on deindustrialization to the Global South. Case studies from Argentina, India, Tanzania and Turkey demonstrate the variegated nature of deindustrialization beyond the North Atlantic. In the process, it is demonstrated that cities in the Global South can inform wider theoretical discussions on the impacts of deindustrialization at the urban scale

An appeal to the global health community for a tripartite innovation: an ‘‘Essential Diagnostics List,’’ ‘‘Health in All Policies,’’ and ‘‘See-Through 21st Century Science and Ethics"

Diagnostics spanning a wide range of new biotechnologies, including proteomics, metabolomics, and nanotechnology, are emerging as companion tests to innovative medicines. In this Opinion, we present the rationale for promulgating an ‘‘Essential Diagnostics List.’’ Additionally, we explain the ways in which adopting a vision for ‘‘Health in All Policies’’ could link essential diagnostics with robust and timely societal outcomes such as sustainable development, human rights, gender parity, and alleviation of poverty. We do so in three ways. First, we propose the need for a new, ‘‘see through’’ taxonomy for knowledge-based innovation as we transition from the material industries (e.g., textiles, plastic, cement, glass) dominant in the 20th century to the anticipated knowledge industry of the 21st century. If knowledge is the currency of the present century, then it is sensible to adopt an approach that thoroughly examines scientific knowledge, starting with the production aims, methods, quality, distribution, access, and the ends it purports to serve. Second, we explain that this knowledge trajectory focus on innovation is crucial and applicable across all sectors, including public, private, or public–private partnerships, as it underscores the fact that scientific knowledge is a co-product of technology, human values, and social systems. By making the value systems embedded in scientific design and knowledge co-production transparent, we all stand to benefit from sustainable and transparent science. Third, we appeal to the global health community to consider the necessary qualities of good governance for 21st century organizations that will embark on developing essential diagnostics. These have importance not only for science and knowledge based innovation, but also for the ways in which we can build open, healthy, and peaceful civil societies today and for future generations

Early mobilisation in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a subanalysis of the ESICM-initiated UNITE-COVID observational study

Background Early mobilisation (EM) is an intervention that may improve the outcome of critically ill patients. There is limited data on EM in COVID-19 patients and its use during the first pandemic wave. Methods This is a pre-planned subanalysis of the ESICM UNITE-COVID, an international multicenter observational study involving critically ill COVID-19 patients in the ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020. We analysed variables associated with the initiation of EM (within 72 h of ICU admission) and explored the impact of EM on mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, as well as discharge location. Statistical analyses were done using (generalised) linear mixed-effect models and ANOVAs. Results Mobilisation data from 4190 patients from 280 ICUs in 45 countries were analysed. 1114 (26.6%) of these patients received mobilisation within 72 h after ICU admission; 3076 (73.4%) did not. In our analysis of factors associated with EM, mechanical ventilation at admission (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.25, 0.35; p = 0.001), higher age (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98, 1.00; p ≤ 0.001), pre-existing asthma (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73, 0.98; p = 0.028), and pre-existing kidney disease (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.71, 0.99; p = 0.036) were negatively associated with the initiation of EM. EM was associated with a higher chance of being discharged home (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.08, 1.58; p = 0.007) but was not associated with length of stay in ICU (adj. difference 0.91 days; 95% CI − 0.47, 1.37, p = 0.34) and hospital (adj. difference 1.4 days; 95% CI − 0.62, 2.35, p = 0.24) or mortality (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.7, 1.09, p = 0.24) when adjusted for covariates. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that a quarter of COVID-19 patients received EM. There was no association found between EM in COVID-19 patients' ICU and hospital length of stay or mortality. However, EM in COVID-19 patients was associated with increased odds of being discharged home rather than to a care facility. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04836065 (retrospectively registered April 8th 2021)