Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a chronic, progressive disease that has detrimental consequences on a patient's quality of life (QoL). In part due to requirements for market access and licensing, the assessment of current and future treatments focuses on reducing mortality and hospitalizations. Few drugs are available principally for their symptomatic effect despite the fact that most patients' symptoms persist or worsen over time and an acceptance that the survival gains of modern therapies are mitigated by poorly controlled symptoms. Additional contributors to the failure to focus on symptoms could be the result of under-reporting of symptoms by patients and carers and a reliance on insensitive symptomatic categories in which patients frequently remain despite additional therapies. Hence, formal symptom assessment tools, such as questionnaires, can be useful prompts to encourage more fidelity and reproducibility in the assessment of symptoms. This scoping review explores for the first time the assessment options and management of common symptoms in CHF with a focus on patient-reported outcome tools. The integration of patient-reported outcomes for symptom assessment into the routine of a CHF clinic could improve the monitoring of disease progression and QoL, especially following changes in treatment or intervention with a targeted symptom approach expected to improve QoL and patient outcomes.
Introduction Despite the increase in female doctors graduating from medical schools internationally, gender disparity in surgery remains. This disparity is also evident in academic surgery. This study aims to quantify the extent of gender disparity in the authorship of articles in major surgical journals. Method The Top 10 Surgical Journals were identified using SCImago Journal Rank indicator. Authorship details for papers published in 2019 were collected. Authors were assigned as female, male or unknown using Gender API software (Gender API, Germany). For each journal, the percentage of first author, last author, corresponding author and all authors split by gender was interrogated. Gender differences by publication type were also identified. Result 9 of the 10 journals had full names publicly available. Overall, 2414 manuscripts were interrogated which included 16,277 number of authors. Respectively, females and males accounted for 29.8% [22.9–34.9%] (N = 655) and 62.4% [56.3–70.2%] (N = 1419) of first authors, 20.6% [11.8–27.1%] (N = 453) and 74.2% [65.6–84.1%] (N = 1706) of last authors, 23.9% [14.9–29.6%] (N = 510) and 69.9% [60.5–79.3%] (N = 2341) of corresponding authors and in total 27% [19.4–31.6%] (N = 4298) and 65.5% [58.6–73.4%] (N = 9982) of all authors. The wide range in these results could be a result of various factors. Conclusion This study has identified a gender imbalance in authorship positions, with the greatest difference observed in the most senior author position. Whether this is reflective of the current disparity observed in senior academic surgery positions or due to gender discrimination is unclear. Take-home Message This study identified a gender imbalance in authorship positions of major surgical journals, which has implications for women who choose to pursue a career in academic surgery.
Introduction Despite the increase in female doctors graduating from medical schools internationally, gender disparity in surgery remains. This disparity is also evident in academic surgery. This study aims to quantify the extent of gender disparity in the authorship of articles in major surgical journals. Method The Top 10 Surgical Journals were identified using SCImago Journal Rank indicator. Authorship details for papers published in 2019 were collected. Authors were assigned as female, male or unknown using Gender API software (Gender API, Germany). For each journal, the percentage of first author, last author, corresponding author and all authors split by gender was interrogated. Gender differences by publication type were also identified. Results 9 of the 10 journals had full names publicly available. Overall, 2414 manuscripts were interrogated which included 16,277 number of authors. Respectively, females and males accounted for 29.8% [22.9-34.9%] (N = 655) and 62.4% [56.3-70.2%] (N = 1419) of first authors, 20.6% [11.8-27.1%] (N = 453) and 74.2% [65.6-84.1%] (N = 1706) of last authors, 23.9% [14.9-29.6%] (N = 510) and 69.9% [60.5-79.3%] (N = 2341) of corresponding authors and in total 27% [19.4-31.6%] (N = 4298) and 65.5% [58.6-73.4%] (N = 9982) of all authors. The wide range in these results could be a result of various factors. Conclusions This study has identified a gender imbalance in authorship positions, with the greatest difference observed in the most senior author position. Whether this is reflective of the current disparity observed in senior academic surgery positions or due to gender discrimination is unclear.
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.