Inequities in Epilepsy: A Scoping Review.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to complete a scoping review of current literature surrounding health inequities in epilepsy while providing recommendations for future research. Methods: During July 2022, we searched MEDLINE and Ovid Embase to find published articles pertaining to epilepsy and health inequities. Initially, authors received training. Authors then screened, and data were extracted in a masked duplicate manner. Studies published within the time frame of 2011-2021 in all countries were deemed appropriate. We screened 5,325 studies for titles and abstracts and then 56 studies for full text. We evaluated the inequities of race/ethnicity, sex or gender, income, occupation status, education level, under-resourced/rural population, and LGBTQ+. To summarize the data and descriptive statistics of our study, we used Stata 17.0 (StataCorp, LLC, College Station, TX). Results: We obtained a sample size of 45 studies for study inclusion. The most reported health inequities were income (18/45, 40.0%), under-resourced/rural population (15/45, 33.3%), and race/ethnicity (15/45, 33.3%). The least reported health inequity was LGBTQ+ (0/45, 0.0%). Discussion: The findings of our study suggest that gaps exist in literature concerning epilepsy and inequities. The inequities of income status, under-resourced/rural population, and race/ethnicity were examined the most, while LGBTQ+, occupation status, and sex or gender were examined the least. With the ultimate goal of more equitable and patient-centered care in mind, it is vital that future studies endeavor to fill in these determined gaps.

Obesity, stigma, and person-centered language: A serial cross-sectional analysis of scientific literature.

OBJECTIVE: Language can influence societal perceptions of medical conditions. The employment of person-centered language (PCL) in health care is reflected in many scientific publications; however, the extent of this adaptation in reference to obesity is unknown. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis included a systematic search of PubMed obesity-related articles across four cohorts spanning January 2004 through December 2006; January 2008 through December 2010; January 2015 through December 2018; and January 2019 through May 2020, respectively. Approximately 1971 publications were screened and examined for prespecified, non-PCL terminology set forth by the American Medical Association Manual of Style and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, of which 991 were retained. Statistical analysis demonstrating PCL and non-PCL findings was then performed. Incidence rates and cohort classifications were reported. RESULTS: Of the 991 articles examined, it was found that 24.02% of publications adhered to PCL. Similar adherence was observed across obesity-specific, general medicine, and nutrition journals. PCL adherence increased over time. The most common non-PCL label was "obese," occurring in 75.48% of articles. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation showed that non-PCL in reference to obesity is widely evident in weight-focused journals despite recommendations for adherence to PCL guidelines. Continued use of non-PCL in reference to obesity in research may inadvertently perpetuate weight-based stigma and health disparities in future generations.

Assessing the Reporting of Harms in Systematic Reviews Focused on the Therapeutic and Cosmetic Uses of Botulinum Toxin.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The expanding use of botulinum toxin (BoNT) in medical practice demonstrates the need to highlight whether there is adequate information regarding its safety profile. The aim of our study was to identify completeness of harms reporting for BoNT treatment within systematic reviews (SRs), assess quality of SRs using the AMSTAR-2 tool, and determine the degree of overlap among primary studies within each SR. METHODS: On May 31, 2022, we searched Embase, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for SRs on BoNT therapy. Screening and data extraction were performed in a masked, duplicate fashion. AMSTAR-2 was used to evaluate the methodological quality of included SRs. Corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated for SR dyads. RESULTS: Of the 90 included SRs, we found that 70 completed less than 50% of harms items. The most reported items were BoNT as a favorable intervention (73/90, 81.1%) and harms as a primary outcome (72/90, 80.0%). The least reported items were grades and severity scales used to classify harms (8/90, 8.9%) and number of treatment discontinuations in each arm (10/90, 11.1%). Eighty-three SRs were rated "critically low" (83/90, 92.2%), while 5 SRs were rated "high" (5/90, 5.6%) via AMSTAR-2 tool. Significant associations were found between completion of harms reporting and: (1) a "critically low" appraisal on AMSTAR-2 tool (p = 0.0060) and (2) whether harms was reported as a primary outcome (p = 0.0001). The total CCA overlap was determined to be 0.8%. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that harms are underreported within BoNT SRs. Because healthcare professionals often refer to SRs to guide clinical decision making, it is important to continue to explore shortcomings among BoNT literature in future studies.