7 research outputs found

    Diversidad y abundancia de mamíferos del bosque mesófilo de montaña del noreste de México

    Get PDF
    The cloud forest (CF) is one of the ecosystems with a great variety of biodiversity, however, it is also one of the most reduced in territorial surface with fragmentation among its distribution, which increases the probability of human disturbances and biodiversity loss. Our objective was to estimate alpha diversity and relative abundance of medium and large mammals present in the CF of El Cielo biosphere reserve (ECBR), Tamaulipas, Mexico. The study was carried out from January 2018 to December 2020. In this period, 20 sampling stations with one camera-trap were placed. We used the Hill series numbers method to estimate mammalian diversity during the rainy and dry seasons, and rarefaction curves to compare diversity between seasons. We estimated abundance with the relative abundance index (RAI). A total of 18 species of mammals were identified, corresponding to six orders and 12 families. The best represented order was Carnivora. The richness was 16 and 18 species, for the rainy and dry seasons, respectively. However, there were no significant differences between seasons. The species with the highest relative abundance in the rainy season was Mazama temama and the lowest Odocoileus virginianus. In the dry season, Didelphis sp. showed the highest IAR, and the lowest O. virginianus. Five species in danger of extinction were registered and and one threatened. The number of species described shows that it is one of the sites with the greatest richness of medium and large mammals in CF of Mexico and high abundances of M. temama, Ursus americanus and Leopardus wiedii stand out. In addition, the presence of species such as Panthera onca and Puma concolor shows that this type of vegetation is in a good state of conservation.El bosque mesófilo de montaña (BMM) es uno de los ecosistemas vegetales con una gran diversidad biológica, sin embargo, también es uno de los más reducidos en superficie territorial y su distribución es fragmentada, lo que incrementa su probabilidad de sufrir perturbaciones humanas y pérdida de la biodiversidad. El objetivo de esta investigación fue estimar la diversidad alfa y la abundancia relativa de los mamíferos medianos y grandes presentes en el BMM de la reserva de la biosfera El Cielo (RBEC), Tamaulipas, México. El estudio se realizó de enero del 2018 a diciembre del 2020. En este periodo se colocaron 20 estaciones de muestreo con una cámara-trampa. Se estimó la diversidad de los mamíferos durante la temporada de lluvia y seca con los números de la serie Hill. La diversidad se comparó entre temporadas con las curvas de rarefacción y la abundancia se estimó con el índice de abundancia relativa (IAR) para cada especie. Se lograron identificar 18 especies de mamíferos y el orden mejor representado fue Carnivora. La riqueza fue de 16 y 18 especies, para la temporada de lluvia y seca, respectivamente. La especie con mayor abundancia relativa en la temporada de lluvia fue Mazama temama y la de menor Odocoileus virginianus. En la seca, Didelphis sp. fue la que presentó mayor IAR, y la menor fue O. virginianus. Se registraron cinco especies que se encuentran en peligro de extinción y una considerada como amenazada. El número de especies que se describen muestra que se trata de uno de los sitios con mayor riqueza de mamíferos medianos y grandes en BMM de México y destacan abundancias relativas altas de M. temama, Ursus americanus y Leopardus wiedii. A demás, la presencia de especies como Panthera onca y Puma concolor, muestran que este tipo de vegetación tiene un buen estado de conservación

    Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

    Get PDF
    Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

    Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study (Intensive Care Medicine, (2021), 47, 2, (160-169), 10.1007/s00134-020-06234-9)

    No full text
    The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The members of the ESICM Trials Group Collaborators were not shown in the article but only in the ESM. The full list of collaborators is shown below. The original article has been corrected
    corecore