Objective To estimate financial payments from industry to US journal editors. Design Retrospective observational study. Setting 52 influential (high impact factor for their specialty) US medical journals from 26 specialties and US Open Payments database, 2014. Participants 713 editors at the associate level and above identified from each journal’s online masthead. Main outcome measures All general payments (eg, personal income) and research related payments from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to eligible physicians in 2014. Percentages of editors receiving payments and the magnitude of such payments were compared across journals and by specialty. Journal websites were also reviewed to determine if conflict of interest policies for editors were readily accessible. Results Of 713 eligible editors, 361 (50.6%) received some (>$0) general payments in 2014, and 139 (19.5%) received research payments. The median general payment was $11 (£8; €9) (interquartile range $0-2923) and the median research payment was $0 ($0-0). The mean general payment was $28 136 (SD $415 045), and the mean research payment was $37 963 (SD $175 239). The highest median general payments were received by journal editors from endocrinology ($7207, $0-85 816), cardiology ($2664, $0-12 912), gastroenterology ($696, $0-20 002), rheumatology ($515, $0-14 280), and urology ($480, $90-669). For high impact general medicine journals, median payments were $0 ($0-14). A review of the 52 journal websites revealed that editor conflict of interest policies were readily accessible (ie, within five minutes) for 17/52 (32.7%) of journals. Conclusions Industry payments to journal editors are common and often large, particularly for certain subspecialties. Journals should consider the potential impact of such payments on public trust in published research.

This study demonstrates that strong adherence and SVR with DAAs is achievable, with appropriate supports, even in the context of substance use, and complex health/social issues.

Study Design. A retrospective cohort study. Objective. The aim of this study was to examine variation in spine surgery utilization between the province of Ontario and state of New York among all patients and pre-specified patient subgroups. Summary of Background Data. Spine surgery is common and costly. Within-country variation in utilization is well studied, but there has been little exploration of variation in spine surgery utilization between countries. Methods. We used population-level administrative data from Ontario (years 2011–2015) and New York (2011–2014) to identify all adults who underwent inpatient spinal decompression or fusion surgery using relevant procedure codes. Patients were stratified according to age and surgical urgency (elective vs. emergent). We calculated standardized utilization rates (procedures per-10,000 population per year) for each jurisdiction. We compared Ontario and New York with respect to patient demographics and the percentage of hospitals performing spine surgery. We compared utilization rates of spinal decompression and fusion surgery in Ontario and New York among all patients and after stratifying by surgical urgency and patient age. Results. Patients in Ontario were older than patients in New York for both decompression (mean age 58.8 vs. 51.3 years; P < 0.001) and fusion (58.1 vs. 54.9; P < 0.001). A smaller percentage of hospitals in Ontario than New York performed decompression (26.1% vs. 54.9%; P < 0.001) or fusion (15.2% vs. 56.7%; P < 0.001). Overall, utilization of spine surgery (decompression plus fusion) in Ontario was 6.6 procedures per-10,000 population per-year and in New York was 16.5 per-10,000 per-year (P < 0.001). Ontario-New York differences in utilization were smaller for emergent cases (2.0 per 10,000 in Ontario vs. 2.5 in New York; P < 0.001), but larger for elective cases (4.6 vs. 13.9; P < 0.001). The lower utilization in Ontario was particularly large among younger patients (age <60 years). Conclusion. We found significantly lower utilization of spine surgery in Ontario than in New York. These differences should inform policy reforms in both jurisdictions. Level of Evidence: 3

In contrast to prior studies, we found that complications after primary TJA were generally similar among white and black men and women with the exception of markedly higher transfusion rates among women of both racial groups.