Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Velentzis LS, Hawkes D, Caruana M, Brotherton JM, Smith MA, Roeske L, et al.
    Tumour Virus Res, 2023 Jun;15:200255.
    PMID: 36736490 DOI: 10.1016/j.tvr.2023.200255
    Australia's cervical screening program transitioned from cytology to HPV-testing with genotyping for HPV16/18 in Dec'2017. We investigated whether program data could be used to monitor HPV vaccination program impact (commenced in 2007) on HPV16/18 prevalence and compared estimates with pre-vaccination benchmark prevalence. Pre-vaccination samples (2005-2008) (n = 1933; WHINURS), from 25 to 64-year-old women had been previously analysed with Linear Array (LA). Post-vaccination samples (2013-2014) (n = 2989; Compass pilot), from 25 to 64-year-old women, were analysed by cobas 4800 (cobas), and by LA for historical comparability. Age standardised pre-vaccination HPV16/18 prevalence was 4.85% (95%CI:3.81-5.89) by LA; post-vaccination estimates were 1.67% (95%CI:1.21-2.13%) by LA, 1.49% (95%CI:1.05-1.93%) by cobas, and 1.63% (95%CI:1.17-2.08%) for cobas and LA testing of non-16/18 cobas positives (cobas/LA). Age-standardised pre-vaccination oncogenic HPV prevalence was 15.70% (95%CI:13.79-17.60%) by LA; post-vaccination estimates were 9.06% (95%CI:8.02-10.09%) by LA, 8.47% (95%CI:7.47-9.47%) by cobas and cobas/LA. Standardised rate ratios between post-vs. pre-vaccination rates were significantly different for HPV16/18, non-16/18 HPV and oncogenic HPV: 0.34 (95%CI:0.23-0.50), 0.68 (95%CI:0.55-0.84) and 0.58 (95%CI:0.48-0.69), respectively. Additional strategies (LA for all cobas positives; combined cobas and LA results on all samples) had similar results. If a single method is applied consistently, it will provide important data on relative changes in HPV prevalence following vaccination.
  2. Banin LF, Raine EH, Rowland LM, Chazdon RL, Smith SW, Rahman NEB, et al.
    Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 2023 Jan 02;378(1867):20210090.
    PMID: 36373930 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2021.0090
    Current policy is driving renewed impetus to restore forests to return ecological function, protect species, sequester carbon and secure livelihoods. Here we assess the contribution of tree planting to ecosystem restoration in tropical and sub-tropical Asia; we synthesize evidence on mortality and growth of planted trees at 176 sites and assess structural and biodiversity recovery of co-located actively restored and naturally regenerating forest plots. Mean mortality of planted trees was 18% 1 year after planting, increasing to 44% after 5 years. Mortality varied strongly by site and was typically ca 20% higher in open areas than degraded forest, with height at planting positively affecting survival. Size-standardized growth rates were negatively related to species-level wood density in degraded forest and plantations enrichment settings. Based on community-level data from 11 landscapes, active restoration resulted in faster accumulation of tree basal area and structural properties were closer to old-growth reference sites, relative to natural regeneration, but tree species richness did not differ. High variability in outcomes across sites indicates that planting for restoration is potentially rewarding but risky and context-dependent. Restoration projects must prepare for and manage commonly occurring challenges and align with efforts to protect and reconnect remaining forest areas. The abstract of this article is available in Bahasa Indonesia in the electronic supplementary material. This article is part of the theme issue 'Understanding forest landscape restoration: reinforcing scientific foundations for the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration'.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links