Systematic analysis of authorship demographics in global surgery.

BACKGROUND: Global surgery has recently gained prominence as an academic discipline within global health. Authorship inequity has been a consistent feature of global health publications, with over-representation of authors from high-income countries (HICs), and disenfranchisement of researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, we investigated authorship demographics within recently published global surgery literature. METHODS: We performed a systematic analysis of author characteristics, including gender, seniority and institutional affiliation, for global surgery studies published between 2016 and 2020 and indexed in the PubMed database. We compared the distribution of author gender and seniority across studies related to different topics; between authors affiliated with HICs and LMICs; and across studies with different authorship networks. RESULTS: 1240 articles were included for analysis. Most authors were male (60%), affiliated only with HICs (51%) and of high seniority (55% were fully qualified specialist or generalist clinicians, Principal Investigators, or in senior leadership or management roles). The proportion of male authors increased with increasing seniority for last and middle authors. Studies related to Obstetrics and Gynaecology had similar numbers of male and female authors, whereas there were more male authors in studies related to surgery (69% male) and Anaesthesia and Critical care (65% male). Compared with HIC authors, LMIC authors had a lower proportion of female authors at every seniority grade. This gender gap among LMIC middle authors was reduced in studies where all authors were affiliated only with LMICs. CONCLUSION: Authorship disparities are evident within global surgery academia. Remedial actions to address the lack of authorship opportunities for LMIC authors and female authors are required.

Outcomes of patients with thoraco-abdominal gunshot wounds operatively managed at a district hospital in Cape Town, South Africa.

AIM: Trauma is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the first four decades of life. Thoracoabdominal gunshot wounds carry a significant risk of mortality. This risk of death is reduced if patients are managed in dedicated units. This study examines the outcome of these patients managed in a district level hospital. METHOD: In this retrospective review, patients with thoracoabdominal gunshot wounds were identified from operating room registry for the period of January 2015 to December 2018. Data was collected retrospectively from folders and analysed for the primary outcome of mortality. RESULTS: Sixty-eight thoracoabdominal gunshot wounds were managed operatively over the period described. Only six patients were female. The median age was 29.5 years. Fourteen patients required postoperative transfer to a level 1 trauma unit. Thirteen patients died, nine at the district hospital and four at the level 1 unit. Significant differences in organ injuries were noted in the patients that died compared to the survivors. DISCUSSION: The in-hospital mortality rate of patients managed at the district hospital was 13.2% which is comparable to international rates of 12-18%. However, the subset of patients that required postoperative transfer to a level 1 trauma unit had a high mortality rate of 28.6%. The DH is committed to managing unstable and unresponsive patients once they present. Improved mortality rates will only occur with better prehospital transport policies and by equipping the DH to manage these patients postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Management of these patients can be successful at a district hospital. However, significant obstacles exist to their optimal care, as demonstrated by the high mortality patients requiring postoperative transfer.