Female Editorial Authorship Trends in High-Impact Ophthalmology Journals.

IMPORTANCE: Individuals with perceived experience and expertise are invited by editorial boards to provide commentary through editorials. Female representation among editorialists is not yet defined. OBJECTIVE: To determine female representation as editorial authors in 3 high-impact general ophthalmology journals. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study investigates the proportion of female authorship in editorials published between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 in 3 journals: Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and American Journal of Ophthalmology. Data were collected from April to June 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportions of female first and senior (last or solo) authors between 2005 to 2009 compared with 2015 to 2019. Secondary outcome measures include representation by sex across degree types and subspecialties. Comparisons were made for all editorialists and ophthalmologist editorialists. RESULTS: Of 814 editorial articles, there were 1179 (first and senior) authors identified. Women held 301 (25.5%) of these authorships, including 116 of 365 first authorships (32.9%) and 185 of 814 senior authorships (23.9%). Overall, female first and senior authorships grew by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 (85 of 469 [18.1%] vs 216 of 710 [30.4%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 7.4-317.2; P < .001). Between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, first and senior authorships by women increased (first: 33 of 133 [24.8%] vs 83 of 232 [35.8%]; difference, 11.0%; 95% CI, 1.4-320.6; P = .03; senior: 52 of 336 [15.5%] vs 133 of 478 [27.8%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 6.8-317.9; P < .001). JAMA Ophthalmology most substantially contributed to the increase in female first and senior authorships (13.8% and 16%), although the test for homogeneity among the 3 journals was not significant. The proportion of female ophthalmologist first authors was greater than the proportion of American Board of Ophthalmology-certified female ophthalmologists (81 of 281 [28.9%] vs 123 of 672 [18.3%]; difference, 10.6%; 95% CI, 5.3-315.9; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The proportion of female senior authors increased by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, but female authors represented only 25.5% of editorialists. Compared with male ophthalmologists, female ophthalmologists were more commonly first than senior authors. Additionally, female authors were more likely to be nonophthalmologists or to hold nonmedical, non-PhD degrees. While the swelling rank of female editorialists has paralleled the rising proportion of female ophthalmologists over time, parity by sex has yet to be attained. Greater awareness of disparities and strategies to mitigate them may help equalize representation.

When ophthalmology goes virtual amid a pandemic: content analysis of the 2020 #ASCRSVirtualMeeting.

PURPOSE: To assess the use and impact of the social media platform Twitter during the 2020 ASCRS Virtual Meeting. SETTING: Social media platform Twitter.com. DESIGN: Retrospective review. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of Twitter use during the ASCRS Virtual Meeting in May 2020. All tweets and associated metadata pertaining to the conference were compiled starting from when the virtual meeting was announced (April 8, 2020) to 2 weeks postconference (May 31, 2020). Two coders independently coded all tweets and excluded tweets if they were irrelevant or no longer available. RESULTS: A total of 501 tweets were reviewed, of which 48.5% of tweets came from private accounts, 23.1% from academic institutions, 14.4% from ASCRS accounts, 12.4% from industry, and 1.6% from professional organizations; 146 tweets (29.1%) were shared before, 303 tweets (60.5%) during, and 52 tweets (10.4%) after the conference. A total of 315 tweets (62.9%) promoted conference events, 137 tweets (27.3%)) were about research studies, 136 tweets (27.1%) were social posts, 115 tweets (23.0%) were from industry sponsors, 22 tweets (4.4%) were self-promotion, and 5 tweets (1.0%5) were not categorized. Twitter impressions on the ASCRS account increased by 79% in 2020 compared with the 2019 annual meeting. CONCLUSIONS: To the author's knowledge, this is the first study to describe how Twitter users engaged with a virtual ophthalmology meeting through social media during the coronavirus pandemic. Findings from this study offer insight into how the ophthalmology community can use social media during conferences and highlight opportunities for networking through social media for both virtual and in-person conferences in the future.

Disparities in Adherence to Screening Guidelines for Diabetic Retinopathy in the United States: A Comprehensive Review and Guide for Future Directions.

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the leading cause of new-onset blindness in American adults aged 20-74 years old. The number of diabetics living with diagnosed DR increased by 89%, from 4.06 million to 7.69 million, between 2000 and 2010. Projected numbers from the Vision Health Initiative by the CDC predict that the rate of DR will triple by 2050, from 5.5 million people living with DR to 16 million. Screening guidelines aim to detect cases early because the treatments for DR can reduce severe vision loss by up to 94%. However, adherence to these guidelines is quite low. It is estimated that more than half of patients with diabetes may fail to receive necessary screening. Risk factors for non-screening discussed in this study include low health literacy, lack of access to care, pregnancy, physician adherence to guidelines, unique factors present in different minority populations, gender and age disparities, and living in rural regions. This paper also aims to address potential interventions that may improve adherence rates.