ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize chronologic trends of gender composition of the editorial boards of major cardiothoracic surgery journals in the current era. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was performed of gender representation in editorial board members of 2 North American cardiothoracic surgery journals from 2008 to 2023. Member names and roles were collected from available monthly issues. Validated software programming was used to classify gender. The annual proportion of women representation was compared to the thoracic surgery workforce. RESULTS: During the study period, 558 individuals (3641 names) were identified, 14.3% of whom were women. The total number of editorial board women increased for both journals. The proportion of women also increased from 2.5% (3 out of 118) in 2008 to 17.8% (71 out of 399) in 2023 (P < .001), exceeding the percentage of women in the thoracic surgery workforce, which increased from 3.8% in 2007 to 8.3% in 2021 (P < .001). The average duration of participation was longer for men than for women (53.8 vs 44.5 months; P = .01). Women in editorial board senior roles also increased from 3.3% (1 out of 30) in 2008 to 28.6% (42 out of 147) in 2023 (P < .001), almost triple the increase in nondesignated roles from 2.3% (2 out of 88) in 2008 to 11.5% (29 out of 252) in 2023 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, the appointment of women to the editorial boards of high-impact cardiothoracic surgery journals and senior roles have proportionally exceeded the overall representation of women in cardiothoracic surgery. These findings indicate progress in inclusive efforts and offer insight toward reducing academic gender disparities.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: National quality reporting efforts after revascularization for peripheral artery disease (PAD) are ongoing. Validation of endpoints are necessary in national quality registries. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the interrater reliability for the endpoint of major amputation at 1 year in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry and the Medicare-linked Vascular Quality Initiative registry (VQI-VISION) against electronic health record (EHR) review. METHODS: Surgical or endovascular revascularization procedures between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, in the VQI registry and VQI-VISION for 2 academic health systems were queried. Major amputation data were abstracted by trained data collectors for the VQI and derived from Current Procedural Terminology codes for VQI-VISION. Cases underwent protocolized adjudication for the endpoint of major amputation by EHR review. Paired tests were used to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity. Spearman's ρ and Cohen's κ were used to evaluate interrater reliability. RESULTS: Amputation endpoints for 1,936 revascularizations were examined. Compared with major amputation data in EHR review, the sensitivity for the VQI registry was 35.9% and the specificity was 99.4% (ρ = 0.53; κ = 0.48). For VQI-VISION, sensitivity was 67.7% and specificity was 98.9% (ρ = 0.75; κ = 0.74). For any amputation in VQI data, sensitivity was 35.3% and specificity was 99.3% (ρ = 0.53; κ = 0.46), and for VQI-VISION, they were 71.6% and 97.7%, respectively (ρ = 0.75; κ = 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Almost two-thirds of the amputations in the VQI registry and one-third of amputations in VQI-VISION were missing at 1 year compared against adjudicated EHR review. In preparing for national reporting systems for major amputation tracking, data collection system reform is needed.