Electric scooters (e-scooters) are a novel, rapid, and convenient mode of transportation with increasing accessibility across the United States. 1 E-scooter use may decrease traffic congestion and increase public transit use. 2 Expansion of e-scooters in dense, high-traffic urban areas will affect rider

Technologic innovations, expensive new therapies, and improved access to treatment have all contributed to the rising costs of oncologic care in the United States. 1 The financial consequences for patients and their families are substantial. Patients with cancer often borrow money, avoid leisure activities, decrease food spending, sell possessions, go into debt, and/or declare bankruptcy, 2 and they are at greater risk for disability or unemployment. 3 These consequences are particularly great for patients who are underinsured or uninsured. Recently, online crowdfunding platforms are being increasingly used to supplement insurance and defray expenses, even for experimental and unproven treatments. 4 We sought to characterize the use of crowdfunding to support oncology care needs, including any association between insurance status and other characteristics.

OBJECTIVELittle is known regarding recent changes in glitazone use.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSInterrupted time series analyses of nationally representative office-visit data using IMS Health's National Disease and Therapeutic Index.RESULTSFrom 2003 through 2005, glitazone use increased steadily. From February 2005 to January 2007, rosiglitazone use decreased by 16% (95% CI −20 to −11) annually; pioglitazone use increased at an annual rate of 14% (9–18). During a period of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisories, rosiglitazone use declined sharply from 0.42 million monthly treatment visits (February 2007) to 0.13 million monthly visits (May 2008). Pioglitazone use remained stable, accounting for ∼5.8 million physician visits (77% of all glitazone use) where a treatment was used during the final 12 months of observation.CONCLUSIONSThe combined effect of scientific publications, advisories, and media exposure was associated with a substantial decrease in rosiglitazone use. Despite a class-level FDA advisory, pioglitazone use was not similarly affected.

Background Predatory journals fail to fulfill the tenets of biomedical publication: peer review, circulation, and access in perpetuity. Despite increasing attention in the lay and scientific press, no studies have directly assessed the perceptions of the authors or editors involved. Objective Our objective was to understand the motivation of authors in sending their work to potentially predatory journals. Moreover, we aimed to understand the perspective of journal editors at journals cited as potentially predatory. Methods Potential online predatory journals were randomly selected among 350 publishers and their 2204 biomedical journals. Author and editor email information was valid for 2227 total potential participants. A survey for authors and editors was created in an iterative fashion and distributed. Surveys assessed attitudes and knowledge about predatory publishing. Narrative comments were invited. Results A total of 249 complete survey responses were analyzed. A total of 40% of editors (17/43) surveyed were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. A total of 21.8% of authors (45/206) confirmed a lack of peer review. Whereas 77% (33/43) of all surveyed editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% of authors (68/206) were somewhat familiar with them (P<.001). Only 26.2% of authors (54/206) were aware of Beall’s list of predatory journals versus 49% (21/43) of editors (P<.001). A total of 30.1% of authors (62/206) believed their publication was published in a predatory journal. After defining predatory publishing, 87.9% of authors (181/206) surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future. Conclusions Authors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices. Editors’ increased familiarity with predatory publishing did little to prevent their unwitting listing as editors. Some suspected predatory journals did provide services akin to open access publication. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing.

For many transgender males, "lower" or "bottom" surgery (the construction of a phallus and scrotum) is the definitive step in their surgical journey for gender affirmation. The implantation of penile and testicular prostheses is often the final anatomic addition and serves to add both functionality and aesthetics to the reconstruction. However, with markedly distinctive anatomy from cis-gender men, the implantation of prostheses designed for cis-male genitalia poses a significant surgical challenge for the reconstructive urologist. The surgical techniques for these procedures remain in their infancy. Implantation of devices originally engineered for cis-men is an imperfect solution but not insurmountable if approached with ingenuity, patience, and persistence. Urologists and patients undergoing implantation should be aware of the high complication rates associated with these procedures as well as the current uncertainty of long-term outcomes. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the perioperative considerations, adaptive surgical techniques, and unique complications of penile and testicular prosthetic implantation in transgender men.

Penile prosthesis placement in the neophallus is feasible and effective. A bone-anchored rear tip is an option to provide proximal stabilization. Continued efforts to minimize the need for revisions are ongoing and necessary.

No abstract

No abstract