Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) has been incorporated into the initial evaluation of trauma for decades. It is an important screening tool in the detection of intra-abdominal fluid. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the use and accuracy of FAST as an imaging tool for blunt abdominal trauma in disaster/mass casualty settings. A systematic review of literature was conducted using key words and search terms. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts to determine inclusion using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS). For studies passing QUADAS, a meta-analysis was performed calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). FAST results were compared with the gold standard, which was a combination of CT scan results, operative findings, and medical records of the clinical course. Initial database screening resulted in 133 articles, of which 21 were selected for QUADAS evaluation. Five studies passed QUADAS and were selected in the final meta-analysis, with a total of 4263 patients. The sensitivity of FAST was 92.1% (87.8–95.6), specificity 98.7% (96.0–99.9), PPV 90.7% (70.0–98.0), and NPV 98.8% (98.1–99.5) for the detection of intra-abdominal injury. In our meta-analysis, FAST was both sensitive and specific in the evaluation of trauma in the disaster setting.

This comment expands on Hooks et al.’s criticism of the problematic and overly general uses of “stress” within the microbiota-gut-brain field. The comment concludes that, for the microbiota-gut-brain field (as for other fields drawing on “stress”), much work is yet to be done in terms of how we explore and understand biology vis-à-vis psychology.

Identifying options for the sustainable intensification of cropping systems in southern Africa under prevailing high climate risk is needed. With this in mind, we tested an intercropping system that combined the staple crop maize with lablab, a local but underutilised legume. Grain and biomass productivity was determined for four variants (i) sole maize (sole-maize), (ii) sole lablab (sole-lablab), (iii) maize/lablab with both crops sown simultaneously (intercropped-SP) and (iv) maize/lablab with lablab sown 28 days after the maize crop (intercropped-DP). Soil water and weather data were monitored and evaluated. The trial was conducted for two seasons (2015/2016 and 2016/2017) at two sites in the Limpopo Province, South Africa: Univen (847 mm rainfall, 29.2 °C maximum and 18.9 °C minimum temperature average for the cropping season over the years 2008–2017) and Syferkuil (491 mm rainfall, with 27.0 °C maximum and 14.8 °C minimum temperature). Analysis revealed three key results: The treatment with intercropped-SP had significantly lower maize yields (2320 kg ha−1) compared with maize in intercropped-DP (2865 kg ha−1) or sole-maize (2623 kg ha−1). As expected, maize yields in the El Niño affected in season 2015/2016 were on average 1688 kg ha−1 lower than in 2016/2017. Maize yields were significantly lower (957 kg ha−1) at Univen, the warmer site with higher rainfall, than at Syferkuil. In 2015/2016, maximum temperature at Univen exceeded 40 °C around anthesis. Furthermore, soil water was close to the estimated permanent wilting point (PWP) for most of the cropping season, which indicates possible water limitations. In Syferkuil, the soil water was maintained well above PWP. Lablab yields were low, around 500 ha−1, but stable as they were not affected by treatment across season and site. Overall, the study demonstrated that intercropped-DP appears to use available soil water more efficiently than sole maize. Intercropped-DP could therefore be considered as an option for sustainable intensification under high climate risk and resource-limited conditions for smallholders in southern Africa.