| 1. |
- Kattge, Jens, et al.
(författare)
-
TRY plant trait database - enhanced coverage and open access
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Global Change Biology. - : Wiley-Blackwell. - 1354-1013 .- 1365-2486. ; 26:1, s. 119-188
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Plant traits-the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants-determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait-based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits-almost complete coverage for 'plant growth form'. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait-environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives.
|
|
| 2. |
- Adachi, Jonathan D., et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of Prevalent Fractures on Quality of Life: Baseline Results From the Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Mayo Clinic proceedings. - : Elsevier BV. - 0025-6196 .- 1942-5546. ; 85:9, s. 806-813
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To examine several dimensions of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in postmenopausal women who report previous fractures, and to provide perspective by comparing these findings with those in other chronic conditions (diabetes, arthritis, lung disease).PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fractures are a major cause of morbidity among older women. Few studies have examined HRQL In women who have had prior fractures and the effect of prior fracture location on HRQL. In this observational study of 57,141 postmenopausal women aged 55 years and older (enrollment from December 2007 to March 2009) from 17 study sites in 10 countries, HRQL was measured using the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Index (EQ-5D) and the health status, physical function, and vitality questions of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36).RESULTS: Reductions in EQ-5D health-utility scores and SF-36 measured health status, physical function, and vitality were seen in association with 9 of 10 fracture locations. Spine, hip, and upper leg fractures resulted in the greatest reductions In quality of life (EQ-5D scores, 0.62, 0.64, and 0.61, respectively, vs 0.79 without prior fracture). Women with fractures at any of these 3 locations, as well as women with a history of multiple fractures (EQ-5D scores, 0.74 for 1 prior fracture, 0.68 for 2, and 0.58 for >= 3), had reductions in HRQL that were similar to or worse than those in women with other chronic diseases (0.67 for diabetes, 0.69 for arthritis, and 0.71 for lung disease).CONCLUSION: Previous fractures at a variety of bone locations, particularly spine, hip, and upper leg, or involving more than 1 location are associated with significant reductions in quality of life.
|
|
| 3. |
- Díez-Pérez, Adolfo, et al.
(författare)
-
Regional differences in treatment for osteoporosis. The Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW)
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Bone. - : Elsevier. - 8756-3282 .- 1873-2763. ; 49:3, s. 493-498
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PurposeTo determine if important geographic differences exist in treatment rates for osteoporosis and whether this variation can be explained by regional variation in risk factors.MethodsThe Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women is an observational study of women ≥ 55 years sampled from primary care practices in 10 countries. Self-administered questionnaires were used to collect data on patient characteristics, risk factors for fracture, previous fractures, anti-osteoporosis medication, and health status.ResultsAmong 58,009 women, current anti-osteoporosis medication use was lowest in Northern Europe (16%) and highest in USA and Australia (32%). Between 48% (USA, Southern Europe) and 68% (Northern Europe) of women aged ≥ 65 years with a history of spine or hip fracture since age 45 were untreated. Among women with osteoporosis, the percentage of treated cases was lowest in Europe (45–52% versus 62–65% elsewhere). Women with osteopenia and no other risk factors were treated with anti-osteoporosis medication most frequently in USA (31%) and Canada (31%), and least frequently in Southern Europe (12%), Northern Europe (13%), and Australia (16%). After adjusting for risk factors, US women were threefold as likely to be treated with anti-osteoporosis medication as Northern European women (odds ratio 2.8; 95% confidence interval 2.5–3.1) and 1.5 times as likely to be treated as Southern European women (1.5, 1.4–1.6). Up to half of women reporting previous hip or spine fracture did not receive treatment.ConclusionsThe likelihood of being treated for osteoporosis differed between regions, and cannot be explained by variation in risk factors. Many women at risk of fracture do not receive prophylaxis.
|
|
