In light of global environmental crises and the need for sustainable development, the fields of public health and environmental sciences have become increasingly interrelated. Both fields require interdisciplinary thinking and global solutions, which is largely directed by scientific progress documented in peer-reviewed journals. Journal editors play a critical role in coordinating and shaping what is accepted as scientific knowledge. Previous research has demonstrated a lack of diversity in the gender and geographic representation of editors across scientific disciplines. This study aimed to explore the diversity of journal editorial boards publishing in environmental science and public health. The Clarivate Journal Citation Reports database was used to identify journals classified as Public, Environmental, and Occupational (PEO) Health, Environmental Studies, or Environmental Sciences. Current EB members were identified from each journal’s publicly available website between 1 March and 31 May 2021. Individuals’ names, editorial board roles, institutional affiliations, geographic locations (city, country), and inferred gender were collected. Binomial 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the proportions of interest. Pearson correlations with false discovery rate adjustment were used to assess the correlation between journal-based indicators and editorial board characteristics. Linear regression and logistic regression models were fitted to further assess the relationship between gender presence, low- and middle-income country (LMIC) presence and several journal and editor-based indicators. After identifying 628 unique journals and excluding discontinued or unavailable journals, 615 journal editorial boards were included. In-depth analysis was conducted on 591 journals with complete gender and geographic data for their 27,772 editors. Overall, the majority of editors were men (65.9%), followed by women (32.9%) and non-binary/other gender minorities (0.05%). 75.5% journal editorial boards (n = 446) were composed of a majority of men (>55% men), whilst only 13.2% (n = 78) demonstrated gender parity (between 45–55% women/gender minorities). Journals categorized as PEO Health had the most gender diversity. Furthermore, 84% of editors (n = 23,280) were based in high-income countries and only 2.5% of journals (n = 15) demonstrated economic parity in their editorial boards (between 45–55% editors from LMICs). Geographically, the majority of editors’ institutions were based in the United Nations (UN) Western Europe and Other region (76.9%), with 35.2% of editors (n = 9,761) coming solely from the United States and 8.6% (n = 2,373) solely from the United Kingdom. None of the editors-in-chief and only 27 editors in total were women based in low-income countries. Through the examination of journal editorial boards, this study exposes the glaring lack of diversity in editorial boards in environmental science and public health, explores the power dynamics affecting the creation and dissemination of knowledge, and proposes concrete actions to remedy these structural inequities in order to inform more equitable, just and impactful knowledge creation.
Background: Carotid body tumor (CBT) is a rare neoplasm that has been increasingly studied during the last decades; nevertheless, it continues to be a topic of controversy. This review aims to provide an update on the general features of CBT and particularly review different treatment strategies and primary outcomes. Methods: Data for this literature review were identified by PubMed, Scopus, and Medline. 93 articles from the initial search were included, as well as 28 relevant studies utilizing the snowballing method; totaling 121 articles about CBT. Results: Main features such as anatomy, embryology, genetics, clinical presentation, and diagnosis of CBT are presented, followed by evidence of different treatment strategies such as radiotherapy, preoperative embolization, vascular resection, and vascular reconstruction. Main complications are also discussed. Conclusion:This review summarizes the most critical aspects regarding CBT. Future studies should compare different treatments to attain the best surgical results with lower morbidity rates.
Background To our knowledge, the treatment, outcome, clinical presentation, risk stratification of patients with venous thromboembolism and COVID-19 have not been well characterized. Methods We searched for systematic reviews, cohorts, case series, case reports, editor letters, and venous thromboembolism COVID-19 patients’ abstracts following PRISMA and PROSPERO statements. We analyzed therapeutic approaches and clinical outcomes of venous thromboembolism COVID-19 patients. Inclusion: COVID-19 patients with venous thromboembolism confirmed by an imaging method (venous doppler ultrasound, ventilation-perfusion lung scan, computed tomography pulmonary angiogram, pulmonary angiography). We assessed and reported the original Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index for each pulmonary embolism patient. In addition, we defined major bleedings according to the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. Results We performed a systematic review from August 9 to August 30, 2020. We collected 1,535 papers from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Wiley, and Opengrey. We extracted data from 89 studies that describe 143 patients. Unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparin was used as parenteral anticoagulation in 85/143 (59%) cases. The Food and Drug Administration-approved alteplase regimen guided the advanced treatment in 39/143 (27%) patients. The mortality was high (21.6%, CI 95% 15.2-29.3). The incidence of major bleeding complications was 1 (0.9%) in the survival group and 1 (3.2%) in the death group. Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index was class I in 11.6% and II in 22.3% in survivors compared to 0% and 6.5% in non-survivors, respectively. Patients who experienced venous thromboembolism events at home were more likely to live than in-hospital events. Conclusions We determined a high mortality incidence of pulmonary embolism and a low rate of bleeding. Unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparin drove parenteral anticoagulation and alteplase the advanced treatment in both groups. The original Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index could be helpful in the risk stratification.
Objective Few studies have focused on arterial thrombosis and acute limb ischemia in COVID-19. This international registry intended to study the spectrum of clinical characteristics, therapeutic trends, and outcomes in a cohort of Ibero-Latin American patients with arterial thrombosis or acute limb ischemia and COVID-19. Methods Data were retrospectively obtained from 21 centers in 9 countries. Patients with proven COVID-19 and asymptomatic or symptomatic arterial thrombosis were included. COVID-19 diagnosis was established by RT-PCR assay or IgM serology plus suggestive clinical/radiographical findings. We recorded and analyzed variables related to demography, clinical presentation, therapeutic trends, and outcomes. Results Eighty one patients were included in the registry. In 38.3%, acute limb ischemia symptoms were the first manifestation of COVID-19. Non-surgical management was more frequent in severe cases than surgical interventions, 11.1% vs. 88.9%, respectively ( p = 0.004). Amputation rates were similar between all COVID severity groups ( p = 0.807). Treatment was classified as non-surgical, open surgical, and endovascular treatment. Further analysis revealed an equal frequency of major leg amputation between treatment groups and increased mortality in patients with non-surgical management. However, multivariate regression analysis showed that treatment choices are associated with disease severity, with significant non-surgical treatment in critical patients; thus, mortality is related to the severity and confounds treatment analysis. Conclusion Arterial thrombosis can be the initial symptom of a patient presenting with COVID-19. Physicians and health workers should potentially suspect COVID-19 in acute ischemia cases without a known risk factor or embolic cause. More experimental and clinical research is required to understand the complex phenomenon of arterial COVID-19 induced coagulopathy fully.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.