Assuntos
Alergia e Imunologia , Distinções e Prêmios , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Feminino , Masculino , Sociedades Médicas , Fatores SexuaisRESUMO
This study examines the influence of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding on the publication choices of dermatologists, particularly in terms of journal tiers and pay-to-publish (P2P) versus free-to-publish (F2P) models. Utilizing k-means clustering for journal ranking based on SCImago Journal Rank, h-index, and Impact Factor, journals were categorized into three tiers and 54,530 dermatology publications from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Authors were classified as Top NIH Funded or Non-Top NIH Funded according to Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research rankings. The study finds significant differences in publication patterns, with Top NIH Funded researchers in Tier I journals demonstrating a balanced use of P2P and F2P models, while they preferred F2P models in Tier II and III journals. Non-Top NIH Funded authors, however, opted for P2P models more frequently across all tiers. These data suggest NIH funding allows researchers greater flexibility to publish in higher-tier journals despite publication fees, while prioritizing F2P models in lower-tier journals. Such a pattern indicates that funding status plays a critical role in strategic publication decisions, potentially impacting research visibility and subsequent funding. The study's dermatology focus limits broader applicability, warranting further research to explore additional factors like geographic location, author gender, and research design.
Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica , Dermatologia , Fator de Impacto de Revistas , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/tendências , Estados Unidos , Dermatologia/economia , Dermatologia/estatística & dados numéricos , Dermatologia/tendências , Humanos , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/economia , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/tendências , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/tendências , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Editoração/estatística & dados numéricos , Editoração/tendências , Editoração/economia , Bibliometria , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/tendências , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/economiaRESUMO
This study investigates the impact of Free-to-Publish (F2P) versus Pay-to-Publish (P2P) models in dermatology journals, focusing on their differences in terms of journal metrics, Article Processing Charges (APCs), and Open Access (OA) status. Utilizing k-means clustering, the research evaluates dermatology journals based on SCImago Journal Rankings (SJR), H-Index, and Impact Factor (IF), and examines the correlation between these metrics, APCs, and OA status (Full or Hybrid). Data from the SCImago Journal Rank and Journal Citation Report databases were used, and metrics from 106 journals were normalized and grouped into three tiers.The study reveals a higher proportion of F2P journals, especially in higher-tier journals, indicating a preference for quality-driven research acceptance. Conversely, a rising proportion of P2P journals in lower tiers suggests potential bias towards the ability to pay. This disparity poses challenges for researchers from less-funded institutions or those early in their careers. The study also finds significant differences in APCs between F2P and P2P journals, with hybrid OA being more common in F2P.Conclusively, the study highlights the disparities in dermatology journals between F2P and P2P models and underscores the need for further research into authorship demographics and institutional affiliations in these journals. It also establishes the effectiveness of k-means clustering as a standardized method for assessing journal quality, which can reduce reliance on potentially biased individual metrics.
Assuntos
Dermatologia , Fator de Impacto de Revistas , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Dermatologia/economia , Dermatologia/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Análise por Conglomerados , Editoração/estatística & dados numéricos , BibliometriaRESUMO
This study investigates the frequency of infections in autoimmune blistering disease (AIBD) patients treated with rituximab and evaluates the difference in infectious complications in patients on concomitant antibiotic and/or antiviral prophylaxis. The study retrospectively reviewed 43 AIBD patients who received rituximab over a five-year interval. The patients were categorized based on prophylaxis type (antibiotic, antiviral, or both) and concomitant immunosuppression status, which we defined as treatment with an immunosuppressive medication during the time frame they were given Rituximab. Our findings suggest that concomitant immunosuppression alongside rituximab did not significantly increase the risk of developing infectious complications compared to rituximab monotherapy. Results revealed that 34.4% of patients with concomitant immunosuppression had a secondary bacterial infection, defined as bacterial complications requiring hospitalization, consistent with prior studies. Moreover, antibiotic prophylaxis did not significantly reduce infection risk in patients on rituximab, with 45.1% of these patients experiencing bacterial complications. There was an absence of pneumocystis pneumonia in the study population. Despite the small sample size and limited timeline, this study suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis may not significantly mitigate the risk of infections in AIBD patients receiving rituximab, and the risk of infection with concomitant immunosuppression with rituximab requires additional investigation for definitive causal risk.
Assuntos
Doenças Autoimunes , Rituximab , Humanos , Rituximab/efeitos adversos , Rituximab/uso terapêutico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Feminino , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Doenças Autoimunes/epidemiologia , Doenças Autoimunes/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Imunossupressores/efeitos adversos , Imunossupressores/uso terapêutico , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Infecções Bacterianas/epidemiologia , Infecções Bacterianas/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções Bacterianas/imunologia , Infecções Bacterianas/microbiologia , Antibioticoprofilaxia/métodos , Antibacterianos/efeitos adversos , Antibacterianos/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Following the initial diagnosis of a marginal zone or follicle center lymphoma on skin biopsy, patients undergo staging to determine the extent of disease. OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize the frequency that these patients were found to have a systemic nodal disease upon work-up as well as the impact of imaging on disease management. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients presenting with a working diagnosis of PCMZL or PCFCL treated at The Ohio State University from 1990 to 2022. Data collected included: patient history, progress notes, virtual encounters, laboratory results, presentation features, imaging, and pathology. Biomarkers included ANA, SSA/SSB, BCL6 and H. Pylori labs, bone marrow biopsies, positive imaging, and need of systemic medication and mortality. RESULTS: 71 patients with suspected PCMZL and PCFCL were identified. 66 of 71 patients underwent imaging. Of this group, 12 patients (9 with suspected PCFCL and 3 with suspected PCMZL) demonstrated lymphadenopathy on imaging. Of these 12 patients, 5 underwent biopsy of suspected lymph nodes, and 3 had biopsy-proven nodal involvement and received systemic therapy. Of the remaining 7 patients with evidence of lymphadenopathy on imaging, 4 were thought to have reactive lymph nodes, and 3 were treated empirically with systemic chemotherapy due to the extent or progression of their disease. Of patients with imaging negative for lymphadenopathy, 3 of 52 (5.8%) patients with received systemic treatment, while 49 of 52 patients (94.2%) received localized treatment. LIMITATIONS: Most of the relationships between this data were correlational and patients selected for this study were limited to a single institution. CONCLUSION: Prospective study of the role of imaging without subsequent lymph biopsy to direct treatment decisions is warranted.
Assuntos
Linfadenopatia , Neoplasias Cutâneas , Humanos , Masculino , Estudos Retrospectivos , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Linfadenopatia/diagnóstico , Linfadenopatia/patologia , Idoso , Neoplasias Cutâneas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Cutâneas/terapia , Neoplasias Cutâneas/patologia , Biópsia , Adulto , Linfoma de Zona Marginal Tipo Células B/diagnóstico , Linfoma de Zona Marginal Tipo Células B/terapia , Linfoma de Zona Marginal Tipo Células B/patologia , Linfonodos/patologia , Pele/patologia , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Linfoma Folicular/diagnóstico , Linfoma Folicular/patologia , Linfoma Folicular/terapia , Linfoma Folicular/tratamento farmacológico , Estadiamento de NeoplasiasRESUMO
In examining the influence of National Institute of Health (NIH) funding on gender distribution within dermatology leadership roles, a cross-sectional analysis of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited dermatology residencies was conducted. The gender of leadership faculty was verified using online resources, while institutions were categorized by their 2022 NIH dermatology funding status. Results revealed that male dermatologists predominantly occupied department chair roles, whereas female dermatologists were more frequently found in associate program director roles, regardless of funding status. Notably, women held most program director positions in the top NIH-funded group, though this difference was not statistically significant due to a smaller sample size. The overall gender distribution has shown progress from 2021, with a significant rise in female associate program directors and a narrowing gender gap for chairs and program directors. Despite NIH funding rank playing a minimal role in gender distribution, our study underscores positive strides towards gender equality in dermatology leadership. Further advocacy for gender balance and additional research on underlying factors are essential for continued progress.