Increases in female academic productivity and female mentorship highlight sustained progress in previously identified neurosurgical gender disparities.

OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis was performed to understand disparities in the representation of female authorship within the neurosurgical literature and implications for career advancement of women in neurosurgery. METHODS: Author names for articles published in 16 of the top neurosurgical journals from 2002 to 2019 were obtained from MEDLINE. The gender of each author was determined using automated prediction methods. Publication trends were compared over time and across subdisciplines. Female authorship was also compared to the proportionate composition of women in the field over time. RESULTS: The metadata obtained from 16 major neurosurgical journals yielded 66,546 research articles. Gender was successfully determined for 96% (127,809/133,578) of first and senior authors, while the remainder (3.9%) were unable to be determined through prediction methods. Across all years, 13.3% (8826) of articles had female first authorship and 9.1% (6073) had female senior authorship. Female first authorship increased significantly over time from 5.8% in 2002 to 17.2% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Female senior authorship also increased significantly over time, from 5.5% in 2002 to 12.0% in 2019 (p < 0.001). The journals with the highest proportions of female first authors and senior authors were the Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics (33.5%) and the Asian Journal of Neurosurgery (23.8%), respectively. Operative Neurosurgery had the lowest fraction of female first (12.4%) and senior (4.7%) authors. There was a significant difference between the year-by-year proportion of female neurosurgical trainees and the year-by-year proportion of female neurosurgical first (p < 0.001) and senior (p < 0.001) authors. Articles were also more likely to have a female first author if the senior author of the article was female (OR 2.69, CI 2.52-2.86; p < 0.001). From 1944 to 2019, the Journal of Neurosurgery showed a steady increase in female first and senior authorship, with a plateau beginning in the 1990s. CONCLUSIONS: Large meta-analysis techniques have the potential to effectively leverage large amounts of bibliometric data to quantify the representation of female authorship in the neurosurgical literature. The proportion of female authors in major neurosurgical journals has steadily increased. However, the rate of increase in female senior authorship has lagged behind the rate of increase in first authorship, indicating a disparity in academic advancement in women in neurosurgery.

Systematic review with meta-analysis on transplantation for alcohol-related liver disease: Very low evidence of improved outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) is a leading cause of liver failure and indication for liver transplantation that arises in the setting of alcohol use disorder (AUD). Previous reviews of transplantation for ALD are limited in scope of outcomes and type of ALD studied. A comprehensive systematic review could improve use of transplantation in ALD and improve future research. We hypothesize that while transplanting ALD may improve mortality and relapse, findings will be limited by pre-specified causes of heterogeneity - assessment and treatment of AUD, definition of ALD, spectrum of ALD studied, assessment and rates of relapse, and study quality and bias. AIM: To optimize liver transplantation for ALD, understanding existing research to guide future research, we conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, comparing liver transplant to no-transplant in patients with ALD, with a primary outcome of both short- and long-term mortality and relapse. We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases for peer-reviewed journal articles comparing use of liver transplant in ALD to no-transplant. Two reviewers independently conducted screening, full text review, and data extraction according to the PRISMA guidelines. We report the quality of the evidence according to the GRADE criteria. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 10 studies. Of 1332 participants, 34.2% (456/1332) had undergone liver transplantation, while 65.8% (876/1332) had not. While random effects meta-analysis suggested transplant in comparison to no-transplant had an association of reduced mortality that did not reach statistical significance, relative risk (RR) = 0.51 (0.25-1.05), but not relapse risk, RR = 0.52 (0.18-1.53), significant heterogeneity limited these findings. When restricted to prospective data, transplant compared to no-transplant significantly reduced mortality, RR = 0.25 (0.13-0.46, P < 0.01), and relapse, RR = 0.25 (0.14-0.45, P < 0.01), with insignificant heterogeneity but persistent small-study effects. The overall quality of the evidence was Very Low. Heterogeneity analysis suggested that AUD assessment and treatment was often not reported while ALD, relapse assessment and rate, and data collection were institutionally rather than standardly defined. CONCLUSION: Systematic review of liver transplantation for ALD suggests reduced mortality and relapse in heterogeneous, institution-specific populations with inherent bias. To understand efficacy of transplanting ALD, our research approach must change.