Search

Linli Xu,1,* Yuanchao Li,2,* Yanan He,2,* Mengtong Chen,2 Yuting Zhang,2 Chunlong Liu,2 Li Zhang1 1Department of Obstetrics, Guangdong Women and Children Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, People’s Republic of China; 2Clinical College of Acupuncture, Moxibustion, and Rehabilitation, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, People’s Republic of China*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Li Zhang, Department of Obstetrics, Guangdong Provincial Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, People’s Republic of China, Tel +8613432213940, Email 413788598@qq.comBackground: Pregnancy-related Pelvic Girdle Pain (PPGP) is a prevalent condition characterized by various physiological and pathological processes in the female body. The objective of this study is to offer a comprehensive understanding of the current research landscape, key areas of interest, and potential future directions in the field of PPGP.Methods: Using Web of Science, we explored PPGP literature from 2002 to 2022. VOSviewer and CiteSpace facilitated a quantitative analysis, revealing co-authorship patterns, co-occurring themes, citations, and co-citations.Results: We identified, peaking at 99 publications in 2021. The United States led with 138 publications and the highest citation count (3160). The Karolinska Institute boasted the highest tally of publications (n = 21). Regarding the volume of publications, the esteemed journal of BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth attained the foremost position. Notably, Gutke, Annelie emerged as the most prolific and highly cited author. The analysis of keyword co-occurrence and co-citation clustering unveiled an intricate tapestry of PPGP studies, spanning various domains including risk factors, mechanistic intricacies, diagnostic benchmark, treatment modalities, and far-reaching ramifications on one’s quality of life.Conclusion: Research endeavors

Xu L, Li Y, He Y, et al. J Pain Res. 2024;17:643–666. The authors have advised Figure 1 on page 645 is incorrect. Due to an error at the time of resubmission Figure 1 and Figure 2 were inadvertently duplicated. The correct Figure 1 is shown below. Figure 1 The flow chart of the screening process. The authors apologize for the error.

Future dynamics of biological invasions are highly uncertain because they depend on multiple social–ecological drivers. We used a scenario-based approach to explore potential management options for invasive species in Europe. During two workshops involving a multidisciplinary team of experts, we developed a management strategy arranged into 19 goals relating to policy, research, public awareness, and biosecurity. We conceived solutions for achieving these goals under different plausible future scenarios, and identified four interrelated recommendations around which any long-term strategy for managing invasive species can be structured: (1) a European biosecurity regime, (2) a dedicated communication strategy, (3) data standardization and management tools, and (4) a monitoring and assessment system. Finally, we assessed the feasibility of the management strategy and found substantial differences among scenarios. Collectively, our results indicate that it is time for a new strategy for managing biological invasions in Europe, one that is based on a more integrative approach across socioeconomic sectors and countries.

1. Invasive alien species are one of the major threats to global biodiversity, ecosystem integrity, nature's contributions to people and human health. While scenarios about potential future developments have been available for other global change drivers for quite some time, we largely lack an understanding of how biological invasions might unfold in the future across spatial scales. 2. Based on previous work on global invasion scenarios, we developed a workflow to downscale global scenarios to a regional and policy-relevant context. We applied this workflow at the European scale to create four European scenarios of biological invasions until 2050 that consider different environmental, socio-economic and socio-cultural trajectories, namely the European Alien Species Narratives (Eur-ASNs). 3. We compared the Eur-ASNs with their previously published global counterparts (Global-ASNs), assessing changes in 26 scenario variables. This assessment showed a high consistency between global and European scenarios in the logic and assumptions of the scenario variables. However, several discrepancies in scenario variable trends were detected that could be attributed to scale differences. This suggests that the workflow is able to capture scale-dependent differences across scenarios. 4. We also compared the Global- and Eur-ASNs with the widely used Global and European Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), a set of scenarios developed in the context of climate change to capture different future socio-economic trends. Our comparison showed considerable divergences in the scenario space occupied by the different scenarios, with overall larger differences between the ASNs and SSPs than across scales (global vs. European) within the scenario initiatives. 5. Given the differences between the ASNs and SSPs, it seems that the SSPs do not adequately capture the scenario space relevant to understanding the complex future of biological invasions. This underlines the importance of developin

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science – a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline – the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ‘non‐native’, ‘alien’, ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’, ‘exotic’, ‘non‐indigenous’, ‘naturalised’, ‘pest’) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ‘non‐native’, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) ‘established non‐native’, i.e. those non‐native species that have established self‐sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) ‘invasive non‐native’ – populations of established non‐native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘spread’ for classifying invasiveness and ‘impact’ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for class