Pre- and post-COVID-19 gender trends in authorship for paediatric radiology articles worldwide: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Gender inequalities in academic medicine persist despite progress over the past decade. Evidence-based targeted interventions are needed to reduce gender inequalities. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on gender trends in authorship of paediatric radiology research worldwide. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospectively registered, PRISMA-compliant systematic review searched the following databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus from January 1, 2018, to May 29, 2023, with no restrictions on country of origin. Screening and data extraction occurred independently and in duplicate. Gender of first, last, and corresponding authors were determined using an artificial intelligence-powered, validated, multinational database ( www.genderize.io ). Two time periods were categorised according to the Johns Hopkins Center for Systems Science and Engineering: pre-COVID (prior to March 2020) and peak and post-COVID (March 2020 onwards). One-sample binomial testing was used to analyse proportion of authorship based on gender. Categorical variables were described as frequencies and percentages, and compared using testing chi-square or Fisher exact testing, with a threshold of P<0.05 representing statistical significance. RESULTS: In total, 922 articles were included with 39 countries represented. A statistically significant difference in authorship based on gender persisted during the peak and post-COVID time period (March 2020 onwards) where women represented a statistically significant lower proportion of last (35.5%) and corresponding (42.7%) authors (P<0.001, P=0.001, respectively). Statistically significant differences for first authors were not found in either period (P=0.08 and P=0.48). CONCLUSION: This study identifies differences in gender trends for authorship in paediatric radiology research worldwide. Future efforts to increase authorship by women are needed.

Care pathways in older patients seen in a multidisciplinary same day emergency care (SDEC) unit.

BACKGROUND: Same day emergency care (SDEC) services are being advocated in the UK for frail, older patients in whom hospitalisation may be associated with harm but there are few data on the 'ambulatory pathway'. We therefore determined the patient pathways pre- and post-first assessment in a SDEC unit focussed on older people. METHODS: In consecutive patients, we prospectively recorded follow-up SDEC service reviews (face-to-face, telephone, Hospital-at-Home domiciliary visits), outpatient referrals (e.g. to specialist clinics, imaging, and community/voluntary/social services), and hospital admissions <30 days. In the first 67 patients, we also recorded healthcare interactions (except GP attendances) in the 180 days pre- and post-first assessment. RESULTS: Among 533 patients (mean/SD age = 75.0/17.5 years, 246, 46% deemed frail) assessed in an SDEC unit, 210 were admitted within 30 days (152 immediately). In the 381(71%) remaining initially ambulatory, there were 587 SDEC follow-up reviews and 747 other outpatient referrals (mean = 3.5 per patient) with only 34 (9%) patients being discharged with no further follow-up. In the subset (n = 67), the number of 'healthcare days' was greater in the 180 days post- versus pre-SDEC assessment (mean/SD = 26/27 versus 13/22 days, P = 0.003) even after excluding hospital admission days, with greater healthcare days in frail versus non-frail patients. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: SDEC assessment in older, frail patients was associated with a 2-fold increase in frequency of healthcare interactions with complex care pathways involving multiple services. Our findings have implications for the development of admission-avoidance models including cost-effectiveness and optimal delivery of the multi-dimensional aspects of acute geriatric care in the ambulatory setting.

Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Gender-Affirming Care Worldwide: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Gender-affirming care is a key clinical area that can benefit from implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Identifying barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation is needed to develop an evidence-based implementation strategy. Objective: To identify (1) PROMs previously implemented for gender-affirming care and constructs measured, (2) how patients completed PROMs and how results were reported and used, and (3) barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation. Evidence Review: In this systematic review, PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from inception to October 25, 2021, and updated on December 16, 2022. Gray literature was searched through gray literature database, online search engine, and targeted website searching. Inclusion criteria were (1) original articles of (2) a formally developed PROM or ad hoc instrument administered for gender-affirming care to (3) patients accessing gender-affirming care. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to evaluate quality of included studies. This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021233080). Findings: In total, 286 studies were included, representing 85 395 transgender and nonbinary patients from more than 30 countries. A total of 205 different PROMs were used in gender-affirming care. No studies described using an implementation science theory, model, or framework to support PROM deployment. Key barriers to PROM implementation included issues with evidence strength and quality of the PROM, engaging participants, and PROM complexity. Key enablers of PROM implementation included using PROMs validated for gender-affirming care, implementing PROMs able to be deployed online or in person, implementing PROMs that are shorter and reduce patient burden, engaging key stakeholders and participants as part of developing an implementation plan, and organizational climate. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review of barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation in gender-affirming care, PROM implementation was inconsistent and did not follow evidence-based approaches in implementation science. There was also a lack of patient input in creating implementation strategies, suggesting a need for patient-centered approaches to PROM implementation. Frameworks created from these results can be used to develop evidence-based PROM implementation initiatives for gender-affirming care and have potential generalizability for other clinical areas interested in implementing PROMs.

Twelve tips for teaching neuroanatomy, from the medical students' perspective.

Neuroanatomy is a complex and fascinating subject that is often a daunting prospect for medical students. In fact, the fear of learning neuroanatomy has gained its own name - "neurophobia." This widespread phenomenon among medical students poses a challenge to medical teachers and educators. To tackle "neurophobia" by summarising tips for dynamic and engaging neuroanatomy teaching formulated based on our experiences as medical students and evidence-based techniques.Focusing on the anatomical, physiological, and clinical aspects of neurology and their integration, here we present 12 tips which are [1] Teach the basic structure before fine details, [2] Supplement teaching with annotated diagrams, [3] Use dissections for haptic learning, [4] Teach form and function together, [5] Group anatomy into systems, [6] Familiarise students with neuroimaging, [7] Teach from clinical cases, [8] Let the patient become the teacher, [9] Build from first principles, [10] Try working in reverse, [11] Let the student become the teacher, [12] Let the student become the examiner. These 12 tips can be used by teachers and students alike to provide a high-yield learning experience.

Open science and conflict of interest policies of medical and health sciences journals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A repeat cross-sectional study: Open science policies of medical journals.

Objectives: To audit the transparent and open science standards of health and medical sciences journal policies and explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: Repeat cross-sectional study. Setting: 19 journals listed in Google Scholar's Top Publications for health and medical sciences. Participants: Blood, Cell, Circulation, European Heart Journal, Gastroenterology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Nature Genetics, Nature Medicine, Nature Neuroscience, Neuron, PLoS ONE, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science Translational Medicine, The British Medical Journal, The Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, The Lancet Oncology, and The New England Journal of Medicine. Main outcome measures: We used the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guideline and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requirements for disclosing conflicts of interest (COIs) to evaluate journals standards. Results: TOP scores slightly improved during the COVID-19 pandemic, from a median of 5 (IQR: 2-12.5) out of a possible 24 points in February 2020 to 7 (IQR: 4-12) in May 2021, but overall, scores were very low at both time points. Journal policies scored highest for their adherence to data transparency and scored lowest for preregistration of study protocols and analysis plans and the submission of replication studies. Most journals fulfilled all ICMJE provisions for reporting COIs before (84%; n = 16) and during (95%; n = 18) the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of practising open science. However, requirements for open science practices in audited policies were overall low, which may impede progress in health and medical research. As key stakeholders in disseminating research, journals should promote a research culture of greater transparency and more robust open science practices.

Sample size calculations in high-profile surgical trials that use patient-reported outcome measures: systematic review.

Sample size calculations from high-profile surgical RCTs that used a patient-reported outcome measure as primary outcome were reviewed systematically against Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA2) standards, with a focus on target differences. In this sample of trials, there was frequent use of suboptimal methods to determine the target difference, and sample size calculations were generally not reported to DELTA2 standards. This risks over-recruitment and/or erroneous trial conclusions, which clinicians should be aware of when interpreting published trials.