Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
World J Surg ; 2024 Jun 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38890770

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Sex disparities have previously been identified in surgical academia. This study examines sex differences in the top-cited contemporary general surgery articles and compares Altimetric Attention Score (AAS) and other impact metrics between male and female corresponding authors (CAs). METHODS: We conducted a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most cited articles published between 2019 and 2021 in each of the top 10 general surgery journals based on the 2021 Journal Impact Factor. Impact metrics included AAS, citation count, and H-index of the CA. We used multivariable regression analyses to investigate whether the sex of the CA or first author (FA) was independently associated with AAS and citation count. RESULTS: Among 1000 articles, 23.1% had female CAs and 27.4% female FAs. Female CA articles had higher AAS (13.0 [2.0-63.0] vs. 8.0 [1.0-28.5]; p < 0.001) and lower H-indices (24.0 [11.0-45.0] vs. 31.0 [17.0-50.0]; p = 0.015). Although median citation count did not differ by CA sex, articles with Level 1 evidence and a female CA were cited more often (35.5 [24.0-85.0] vs. 25.0 [16.0 vs. 46.0]; p < 0.05). In multivariable regression, female CA articles had higher AAS (OR: 1.002 [95% CI: 1.001-1.004]) and lower H-index (OR: 0.987 [95% CI: 0.977-0.997]). CONCLUSION: Despite having similar citation counts, articles authored by female CAs exhibit higher AAS scores compared to those authored by their male counterparts. While it is heartening that research authored by female surgeons achieves significant visibility, it remains to be understood how this translates into academic impact and scholarly recognition.

2.
Surgery ; 176(2): 341-349, 2024 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38834400

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: It is unknown if the current minimum case volume recommendation of 20 cases per year per hospital is applicable to contemporary practice. METHODS: Patients undergoing esophageal resection between 2005 and 2015 were identified in the National Cancer Database. High, medium, and low-volume hospital strata were defined by quartiles. Adjusted odds ratios and adjusted 30-day mortality between low-, medium-, and high-volume hospitals were calculated using logistic regression analyses and trended over time. RESULTS: Only 1.1% of hospitals had ≥20 annual cases. The unadjusted 30-day mortality for esophagectomy was 3.8% overall. Unadjusted and adjusted 30-day mortality trended down for all three strata between 2005 and 2015, with disproportionate decreases for low-volume and medium-volume versus high-volume hospitals. By 2015, adjusted 30-day mortality was similar in medium- and high-volume hospitals (odds ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 0.96-1.91). For hospitals with 20 or more annual cases the adjusted 30-day mortality was 2.7% overall. To achieve this same 30-day mortality the minimum volume threshold had lowered to 7 annual cases by 2015. CONCLUSION: Only 1.1% of hospitals meet current volume recommendations for esophagectomy. Differential improvements in postoperative mortality at low- and medium- versus high-volume hospitals have led to 7 cases in 2015 achieving the same adjusted 30-day mortality as 20 cases in the overall cohort. Lowering volume thresholds for esophagectomy in contemporary practice would potentially increase the proportion of hospitals able to meet volume standards and increase access to quality care without sacrificing quality.


Subject(s)
Esophageal Neoplasms , Esophagectomy , Hospitals, High-Volume , Hospitals, Low-Volume , Humans , Esophagectomy/mortality , Esophagectomy/statistics & numerical data , Male , Female , Aged , Middle Aged , Hospitals, High-Volume/statistics & numerical data , Hospitals, Low-Volume/statistics & numerical data , Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery , Esophageal Neoplasms/mortality , United States , Hospital Mortality , Databases, Factual , Retrospective Studies
3.
Cancers (Basel) ; 16(8)2024 Apr 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38672582

ABSTRACT

The incidence of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) is on the rise primarily due to the increasing use of cross-sectional imaging. Most of these incidentally detected lesions are non-functional PNETs with a small proportion of lesions being hormone-secreting, functional neoplasms. With recent advances in surgical approaches and systemic therapies, the management of PNETs have undergone a paradigm shift towards a more individualized approach. In this manuscript, we review the histologic classification and diagnostic approaches to both functional and non-functional PNETs. Additionally, we detail multidisciplinary approaches and surgical considerations tailored to the tumor's biology, location, and functionality based on recent evidence. We also discuss the complexities of metastatic disease, exploring liver-directed therapies and the evolving landscape of minimally invasive surgical techniques.

4.
Ann Surg ; 279(6): 907-912, 2024 Jun 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38390761

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of clinical significance reporting in contemporary comparative effectiveness research (CER). BACKGROUND: In CER, a statistically significant difference between study groups may or may not be clinically significant. Misinterpreting statistically significant results could lead to inappropriate recommendations that increase health care costs and treatment toxicity. METHODS: CER studies from 2022 issues of the Annals of Surgery , Journal of the American Medical Association , Journal of Clinical Oncology , Journal of Surgical Research , and Journal of the American College of Surgeons were systematically reviewed by 2 different investigators. The primary outcome of interest was whether the authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in the "Methods." RESULTS: Of 307 reviewed studies, 162 were clinical trials and 145 were observational studies. Authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in 26 studies (8.5%). Clinical significance was defined using clinically validated standards in 25 studies and subjectively in 1 study. Seven studies (2.3%) recommended a change in clinical decision-making, all with primary outcomes achieving statistical significance. Five (71.4%) of these studies did not have clinical significance defined in their methods. In randomized controlled trials with statistically significant results, sample size was inversely correlated with effect size ( r = -0.30, P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary CER, most authors do not specify what they consider to be a clinically significant difference in study outcome. Most studies recommending a change in clinical decision-making did so based on statistical significance alone, and clinical significance was usually defined with clinically validated standards.


Subject(s)
Comparative Effectiveness Research , Humans , Data Interpretation, Statistical , Research Design , Clinical Trials as Topic
5.
JAMA Surg ; 159(3): 331-338, 2024 Mar 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38294801

ABSTRACT

Importance: Cancer is one of the leading causes of death in the United States, with the obesity epidemic contributing to its steady increase every year. Recent cohort studies find an association between bariatric surgery and reduced longitudinal cancer risk, but with heterogeneous findings. Observations: This review summarizes how obesity leads to an increased risk of developing cancer and synthesizes current evidence behind the potential for bariatric surgery to reduce longitudinal cancer risk. Overall, bariatric surgery appears to have the strongest and most consistent association with decreased incidence of developing breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancers. The association of bariatric surgery and the development of esophageal, gastric, liver, and pancreas cancer is heterogenous with studies showing either no association or decreased longitudinal incidences. Conversely, there have been preclinical and cohort studies implying an increased risk of developing colon and rectal cancer after bariatric surgery. A review and synthesis of the existing literature reveals epidemiologic shortcomings of cohort studies that potentially explain incongruencies observed between studies. Conclusions and Relevance: Studies examining the association of bariatric surgery and longitudinal cancer risk remain heterogeneous and could be explained by certain epidemiologic considerations. This review provides a framework to better define subgroups of patients at higher risk of developing cancer who would potentially benefit more from bariatric surgery, as well as subgroups where more caution should be exercised.


Subject(s)
Bariatric Surgery , Endometrial Neoplasms , Obesity, Morbid , Female , Humans , United States , Bariatric Surgery/adverse effects , Obesity/surgery , Risk , Incidence , Obesity, Morbid/surgery
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL