Heterogeneity in the definition of chronic rhinosinusitis disease control: a systematic review of the scientific literature.

PURPOSE: Disease control is conceptually recognized to be an important outcome measure for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). However, inconsistent usage is a significant factor in disadoption of important concepts and it is presently unclear how consistently the construct of CRS 'control' is being defined/applied. The objective of this study was to determine the heterogeneity of CRS disease control definitions in the scientific literature. METHODS: Systematic review of PubMed and Web of Science databases from inception through December 31, 2022. Included studies used CRS disease control as an explicitly stated outcome measure. The definitions of CRS disease control were collected. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were identified with more than half published in 2021 or later. Definitions of CRS control were variable, although 48.4% of studies used the EPOS (2012 or 2020) criteria to define control, 14 other unique definitions of CRS disease control were also implemented. Most studies included the burden CRS symptoms (80.6%), need for antibiotics or systemic corticosteroids (77.4%) or nasal endoscopy findings (61.3%) as criteria in their definitions of CRS disease control. However, the specific combination of these criteria and prior time periods over which they were assessed were highly variable. CONCLUSION: CRS disease control is not consistently defined in the scientific literature. Although many studies conceptually treated 'control' as the goal of CRS treatment, 15 different criteria were used to define CRS disease control, representing significant heterogeneity. Scientific derivation of criteria and collaborative consensus building are needed for the development of a widely-accepted and -applied definition of CRS disease control.

Sex Disparities in Academic Productivity and Rank Among Abdominal Transplant Faculty in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine sex differences in academic rank and productivity among members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons in the United States. METHODS: Cross-sectional, focusing on current board-certified abdominal transplant surgeons in the United States. Demographic factors such as sex, region, and faculty rank were collected from institutional websites. Academic metrics, including H-index, total publications, and relative citation ratio, were collected from Scopus and iCite. RESULTS: We identified 536 surgeon members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons with an academic institution. The majority were men (83%). Men were in practice longer than women (17.9 ± 11 vs 11.7 ± 9 years, P < .0001) and had higher academic metrics, including H-index (25.6 ± 20 vs16.4 ± 14, P < .0001) and total publications (110 ± 145 vs 58.8 ± 69, P < .0001). There was a significant difference in faculty appointments by sex (P < .05), with men showing evidence of increased academic advancement. After adjusting for academic rank, PhD status, and location of medical school and residency, women remained associated with a lower H-index on multivariate analysis (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Sex disparities in academic rank and achievement are present among transplant surgical faculty in the United States, and future efforts are needed to promote sex equity in transplant surgery academia.