Fungi act as important decomposers in the forest environment. They recycle essential nutrients, promote plant growth through mycorrhizal relationships, and act as food for small animals. Samples of 265 indigenous fungal species were collected from Mudeungsan National Park in 2020. These species were identified based on morphological, molecular, and phylogenetic analyses using the internal transcribed spacer (ITS), nuclear large subunit rRNA (LSU), and RNA polymerase II second largest subunit (rpb2) regions. Subsequently, seven species were identified as unrecorded species in Korea: Cordyceps cicadae, Dentocorticium bicolor, Hymenochaete nanospora, Physisporinus crataegi, Rigidoporus piceicola, Russula raoultii, and Scutellinia crinita. This study reveals their detailed macro- and microscopic morphological characteristics with phylogenetic trees to report them as unrecorded species in Korea.

Although Apiospora Sacc. has previously been considered a sexual morph of Arthrinium species on the basis of phylogenetic, morphological, and ecological diagnoses, a recent study delimited these as different species. Recently, 14 species, including eight new species, of marine Arthrinium have been reported from Korea. Six known species have previously been renamed as species in the genus Apiospora (A. arundinis, A. marii, A. piptatheri, A. rasikravindrae, A. sacchari, and A. saccharicola). However, the eight new species of marine Arthrinium (Ar. agari, Ar. arctoscopi, Ar. fermenti, Ar. koreanum, Ar. marinum, Ar. pusillispermum, Ar. sargassi, and Ar. taeanense) are yet to be studied, and thus the taxonomic status of these species remains to be clarified. In this study, we conducted phylogenetic analyses using the internal transcribed spacer, 28S large subunit ribosomal RNA gene, translation elongation factor 1-alpha, and beta-tubulin regions to confirm the phylogenetic position of these eight species. Based on these analyses, we re-identified the eight Arthrinium species as new combinations in Apiospora. Additionally, among the six known Apiospora species, two (A. piptatheriand A. rasikravindrae) have not previously been recorded in Korea. On the basis of morphological and molecular analyses, we report these as new species in Korea. Herein, we present scanning electron micrographs detailing the morphologies of these species, along with phylogenetic trees and detailed descriptions.

Many Apiospora species have been isolated from bamboo plants – to date, 34 bambusicolous Apiospora species have been recorded. They are known as saprophytes, endophytes, and plant pathogens. In this study, 242 bambusicolous Apiospora were isolated from various bamboo materials (branches, culms, leaves, roots, and shoots) and examined using DNA sequence similarity based on the internal transcribed spacer, 28S large subunit ribosomal RNA gene, translation elongation factor 1-alpha, and beta-tubulin regions. Nine Apiospora species (Ap. arundinis, Ap. camelliae-sinensis, Ap. hysterina, Ap. lageniformis sp. nov., Ap. paraphaeosperma, Ap. pseudohyphopodii sp. nov., Ap. rasikravindrae, Ap. saccharicola, and Ap. sargassi) were identified via molecular analysis. Moreover, the highest diversity of Apiospora was found in culms, and the most abundant species was Ap. arundinis. Among the nine Apiospora species, two (Ap. hysterina and Ap. paraphaeosperma) were unrecorded in Korea, and the other two species (Ap. lageniformis sp. nov. and Ap. pseudohyphopodii

Objective: This study compared the effects of preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) versus resuscitation alone, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) with PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature, and conference proceedings from inception until March 10, 2022. The risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) and ROB 2.0 tools were used to assess the risk of bias for non-randomized studies and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Results: Twenty-two studies, including 1,762 participants, were retrieved. Based on randomized controlled trials, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-2.49; very low certainty of evidence) and improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.19; 95% CI 0.01-3.72; very low certainty of evidence). Based on non-randomized studies, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.21; I2=54%; very low certainty of evidence), improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.18-2.46; I2=75%; very low certainty of evidence), and reducing the post procedural complications (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.39-1.48; I2=66%; very low certainty of evidence). Conclusion There is high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP compared to resuscitation only, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, REBOA following PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. (Registration No. CRD42022311628)

Objective: This study compared the effects of preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) versus resuscitation alone, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) with PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature, and conference proceedings from inception until March 10, 2022. The risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) and ROB 2.0 tools were used to assess the risk of bias for non-randomized studies and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Results: Twenty-two studies, including 1,762 participants, were retrieved. Based on randomized controlled trials, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-2.49; very low certainty of evidence) and improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.19; 95% CI 0.01-3.72; very low certainty of evidence). Based on non-randomized studies, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.21; I2=54%; very low certainty of evidence), improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.18-2.46; I2=75%; very low certainty of evidence), and reducing the post procedural complications (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.39-1.48; I2=66%; very low certainty of evidence). Conclusion There is high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP compared to resuscitation only, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, REBOA following PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. (Registration No. CRD42022311628)

Objective: This study compared the effects of preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) versus resuscitation alone, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) with PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature, and conference proceedings from inception until March 10, 2022. The risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) and ROB 2.0 tools were used to assess the risk of bias for non-randomized studies and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Results: Twenty-two studies, including 1,762 participants, were retrieved. Based on randomized controlled trials, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-2.49; very low certainty of evidence) and improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.19; 95% CI 0.01-3.72; very low certainty of evidence). Based on non-randomized studies, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.21; I2=54%; very low certainty of evidence), improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.18-2.46; I2=75%; very low certainty of evidence), and reducing the post procedural complications (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.39-1.48; I2=66%; very low certainty of evidence). Conclusion There is high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP compared to resuscitation only, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, REBOA following PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. (Registration No. CRD42022311628)

Objective: This study compared the effects of preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) versus resuscitation alone, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) with PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature, and conference proceedings from inception until March 10, 2022. The risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) and ROB 2.0 tools were used to assess the risk of bias for non-randomized studies and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Results: Twenty-two studies, including 1,762 participants, were retrieved. Based on randomized controlled trials, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-2.49; very low certainty of evidence) and improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.19; 95% CI 0.01-3.72; very low certainty of evidence). Based on non-randomized studies, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.21; I2=54%; very low certainty of evidence), improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.18-2.46; I2=75%; very low certainty of evidence), and reducing the post procedural complications (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.39-1.48; I2=66%; very low certainty of evidence). Conclusion There is high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP compared to resuscitation only, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, REBOA following PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. (Registration No. CRD42022311628)