Introduction There is a pressing need for COVID-19 transmission control and effective treatments. We aim to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 pharmacologic therapies as of August 2, 2020 according to study level of evidence. Methods PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, JAMA Network and PNAS were searched. The following keywords were used: ((COVID-19) OR (SARS-CoV-2)) AND ((((((therapeutics) OR (treatment)) OR (vaccine)) OR (hydroxychloroquine)) OR (antiviral)) OR (prognosis)). Results included peer-reviewed studies published in English. Results 15 peer-reviewed articles met study inclusion criteria, of which 14 were RCTs and one was a systematic review with meta-analysis. The following pharmacologic therapies were evaluated: chloroquine (CQ), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), antivirals therapies, plasma therapy, anti-inflammatories, and a vaccine. Conclusion According to level 1 evidence reviewed here, the most effective SARS-Co-V-2 pharmacologic treatments include remdesivir for mild to severe disease, and a triple regimen therapy consisting of lopinavir-ritonavir, ribavirin and interferon beta-1b for mild to moderate disease. Also, dexamethasone significantly reduced mortality in those requiring respiratory support. However, there is still a great need for detailed level 1 evidence on pharmacologic therapies.
Background Research productivity is critical to academic surgery and essential for advancing surgical knowledge and evidence-based practice. We aim to determine if surgeon affiliation with top US universities/hospitals (TOPS) is associated with increased research productivity measured by numbers of peer-reviewed publications in PubMed (PMIDs). Methods A bibliometric analysis was performed for PMIDs. Affiliated authors who published in trauma surgery (TS), surgical critical care (SCC), acute care surgery (ACS), and emergency general surgery (EGS) were evaluated for publications between 2015 and 2019, and lifetime productivity. Our analysis included 3443 authors from 443 different institutions. Our main outcome was PMIDs of first author (FA) and senior author (SA) in each field (2015-2019) and total lifetime publications. Results Significant differences exist between PMIDs from TOPS vs non-TOPS in FA-TS (1.34 vs 1.23, P = .001), SA-TS (1.71 vs 1.46, P < .001), total SA-PMIDs (44.10 vs 26.61, P < .001), and SA-lifetime PMIDs (90.55 vs 59.03, P < .001). There were no significant differences in PMIDs for FA or SA-SCC, FA or SA-ACS, FA or SA-EGS, FA-total PMIDs 2015-2019, or FA-lifetime PMIDs ( P > .05 for all). Conclusion There were significantly higher TS PMIDs among FAs and SAs affiliated with top US institutions in 2015-2019, along with higher total PMIDs (2015-2019) and lifetime PMIDs. These findings are of significance to future graduate medical applicants and academic surgeons who need to make decisions about training and future career opportunities.
Background Surgical fields are historically dominated by male physicians. Increasing the diversity of the physician workforce improves training and patient experiences. We aim to investigate any differences in qualifications and match rates between male and female applicants to general surgery (GS) and orthopedic surgery (OS) residencies in the United States. Methods A retrospective cohort analysis was performed utilizing the Association of American Medical Colleges data regarding Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) applicants and matched Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) residents into GS and OS residencies from 2015 to 2019. Descriptive statistics and independent sample T-tests were performed with significance defined as P < .05. Results 26 568 GS and 7076 OS ERAS applicants matched at a rate of 25.2% and 55.3%, respectively. Men and women matched into GS at rates of 23.0% and 29.2%, respectively. Men and women matched into OS at rates of 55.2% and 56.2%, respectively. Men aged ≥36 years matched into OS at a significantly higher rate than women aged years ≥36 (11.9% vs. 1.4%, P = .009). Female GS ERAS applicants and entering ACGME residents had a higher mean number of research experiences than male GS ERAS applicants (2.66 vs. 2.26, P < .001) and entering male GS ACGME residents (2.96 vs. 2.56, P = .008). Conclusions Male and female GS and OS applicants have similar qualifications. Women match into GS and OS at higher rates than men but comprise disproportionately lower numbers of applicants. Greater mentorship opportunities and recruitment of female applicants are needed to expand, diversify, and increase representation of women in surgery.
Bilateral transverse thoracosternotomy, known colloquially as “clamshell thoracotomy,” provides quick and extensive exposure to the thoracic organs. The origins of the radical incision are unclear, and its influence on historical developments in surgery has not been elaborated. Transsternal extension to bilateral thoracotomy likely occurred during World War I and was designated as Tuffier's method by 1922. Théodore Tuffier had already solidified his reputation as a trailblazing thoracic surgeon in Paris when the French army summoned him to design triage systems for trauma patients during the Great War. Following World War II, cardiac surgery grew tremendously during the 1950s, and many pioneering open‐heart procedures utilized the bilateral incision for safe exposures with satisfactory results. Median sternotomy became the incision of choice for open‐heart surgery by the early 1960s; however, thoracotomy remained important to the trauma surgeon's repertoire. Transsternal conversion was only briefly mentioned in trauma literature through the 1980s, although up to one‐half of reported emergency thoracotomies at busy trauma centers were clamshells. The moniker clamshell thoracotomy came in 1994 when thoracic surgical oncology and lung transplantation flourished with complex operations requiring larger incisions. The twenty‐first century has brought two iterations of evidence‐based guidelines for emergency thoracotomy, but incision choice has not been formally discussed. Renewed conversation in recent years has advocated for the clamshell as arguably the best approach for patients in extremis. Given these trends, the tortuous history of this controversial incision deserves attention.
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.