IMPORTANCE Because women remain underrepresented in leadership positions in medicine, including ophthalmology, knowledge of sex composition of ophthalmic journal editorial and professional society boards seems warranted.OBJECTIVES To investigate the sex composition of ophthalmic journal editorial and professional society boards and compare the publication productivity and number of citations of male vs female board members. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this cross-sectional study, the SCImago Journal Rank indicator was used to identify the 20 highest-ranked ophthalmology journals. Faculty members from each ophthalmic subspecialty were surveyed within a US academic ophthalmology department to identify 15 influential ophthalmology societies. The 2018 board members of each journal and society were identified from the journals' and societies' official websites, and the sex of each individual was recorded. Information regarding journals and societies was collected from October 1 to December 31, 2018. The Scopus database was accessed in January 2019 and then used to find each member's h-index and m-quotient. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe h-index, defined as the highest number of an author's publications that received at least h number of citations, was calculated for each board member. The m-quotient, which accounts for varying lengths of academic careers, was calculated by dividing the h-index by the number of years since first publication. RESULTSOf the 1077 members of ophthalmic journal editorial and society leadership boards, 797 (74.0%) were men and 280 (26.0%) were women. Among the 24 editors in chief of the 20 journals investigated, 23 (95.8%) were male. Thirteen of the 15 professional society presidents (86.7%) were men. Male board members had significantly higher median h-indexes (male vs female journals: 34 [interquartile range {IQR}, 23-47] vs 28 [

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose The aim of the study is to investigate sex differences in academic rank, publication productivity, and National Institute of Health (NIH) funding among oculoplastic surgeons and whether there is an association between American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (ASOPRS) membership and scholarly output. Methods Sex, residency graduation year, and academic rank were obtained from institutional websites of 113 U.S. ophthalmology programs. H-indices and m-quotients were obtained from the Scopus database. NIH funding information was obtained from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool. Results Of the 272 surgeons, 74 (30.2%) were females. When adjusted for career duration, differences in female to male proportions were only significant at the rank of assistant professor (assistant: 74.3 vs. 48.5%, p = 0.047; associate: 18.9 vs. 24.6%, p = 0.243; full professor: 13.0 vs. 37.2%, p = 0.114). Women had a shorter career duration than men [10.0 (interquartile range or IQR 12.0) vs. 21.0 (IQR 20.0) years; p < 0.001] and a lower h-index [4.0 (IQR 5.0) vs. 7.0 (IQR 10.0); p < 0.001], but similar m-quotients [0.4 (IQR 0.4) vs. 0.4 (IQR 0.4); p = 0.9890]. Among ASOPRS members, females had a lower h-index than males [5.0 (IQR 6.0) vs. 9.0 (IQR 10.0); p < 0.001] due to career length differences. No difference in productivity between sexes was found among non-ASOPRS members. ASOPRS members from both sexes had higher scholarly output than their non-ASOPRS counterparts. Just 2.7% (2/74) of females compared with 5.3% (9/171) of males received NIH funding (p = 0.681). Conclusion Sex differences in academic ranks and h-indices are likely due to the smaller proportion of females with long career durations. ASOPRS membership may confer opportunities for increased scholarly output.

BackgroundThere is a high level of interest in international experiences during United States (U.S.) ophthalmology residency training among both program directors and trainees.MethodsAn electronic invitation to a 26-question survey was sent to all 114 U.S. ophthalmology residency program directors. The invitation requested that the survey be completed by the one faculty member who was most involved in overseeing the international experiences for the residents. The survey consisted of multiple choice and Likert-type scale questions. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for analysis of demographic data and Friedman’s test and Wilcoxon-Signed Rank test were used to analyze ranked responses.ResultsResponses were obtained from 70 faculty mentors representing unique programs, yielding a response rate of 61.4%. The majority of programs that responded (88.6%, n = 62) either offered international ophthalmology experiences for residents or supported residents finding their own experiences to go abroad. International experience participation rate among residents correlated with the number of years the experiences had been offered by the programs (p = 0.001). More than half of the respondents (55.0%, n = 33) felt that the residents benefited more than the hosts during these international experiences. Approximately half of the respondents (51.6%, n = 32) believed that additional training beyond what is covered in the standard curriculum to practice ophthalmology in the U.S. is necessary for practicing ophthalmology in an international setting.ConclusionsThere is high interest and participation in international experiences within U.S. ophthalmology residency programs. This high participation warrants further investigation into the long-term impact of these international experiences and how U.S. residency programs can structure these experiences to maximize the benefits to both the residents and the international host communities.

Background In recent years, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Residency Committee for Ophthalmology formally recognized international health electives for credit. By engaging in international health experiences, ophthalmology residents achieve the anchors essential to the core competencies set forth by the ACGME. Objective To explore how the availability of international ophthalmology opportunities may influence applicants' selection of U.S. ophthalmology residency programs and to identify applicants' perceived goals and barriers of participation in international ophthalmology experiences. Methods For this cross-sectional study, an electronic invitation to a 22-item questionnaire was sent to all 413 applicants to the ophthalmology residency program at the Penn State Eye Center during the 2017 Match. Results Responses were received from 261 applicants, yielding a response rate of 63.2%. Nearly all respondents (95.4%) reported interest in participating in an international ophthalmology experience during residency training, with 52.1% of respondents reporting being “extremely interested.” More than half of respondents (53.6%) had previously participated in a healthcare-related experience in an international setting. The availability of international opportunities increased the interest of 67.4% of respondents when choosing which residency programs to apply to, and influenced 65.2% of respondents to rank a residency program higher, with the respondents with previous international experience more likely to be favorably influenced (p < 0.001, p = 0.04, respectively). The goal identified by the largest number of respondents as “most important” was to “offer service to the underserved” (59.0%). The most commonly identified anticipated barriers to participating in an international experience during residency training included concern about scheduling conflicts and call coverage (81.7%), followed by lack of funding (71.4%). Conclusion There is significant interest in international ophthalmology among ophthalmology residency applicants, and the availability of international opportunities during training may influence the applicants' selection of programs. Statistically significant differences were found among respondents with and without previous international healthcare-related experience. These findings warrant further investigation into how residency programs can best address this interest and integrate international ophthalmology experiences into the residency curriculum.

Human granulocytic anaplasmosis (HGA) is a tick-borne, infectious disease caused by Anaplasma phagocytophilum that generally presents with nonspecific symptoms such as fever, chills, headache, malaise, and myalgia. If not treated immediately, HGA can cause hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), a well-documented but underrecognized sequela of severe HGA. In this article, we report a case of severe HGA with hyperferritinemia in a 74-year-old male from Central Pennsylvania who initially presented with recurrent fevers, nausea, and malaise to our emergency department and was subsequently discharged home that same day. Ten days later, the patient returned with acute kidney injury, elevated liver transaminases, and profound hyperferritinemia to 5130 ng/mL. Empiric doxycycline was administered for suspected tick-borne disease and serologies eventually came back positive for anti–Anaplasma phagocytophilum antibodies. The patient returned to baseline status 15 days after discharge. Our case shows the challenges in the timely diagnosis of HGA and highlights the role of serum ferritin in aiding this diagnosis. Although our patient did not fulfill the HLH diagnostic criteria, our report demonstrates the importance of recognizing HGA as a reversible cause of HLH.

We present a case of reversible, pseudovitelliform lesions while a patient was taking pembrolizumab (PDL-1 inhibitor) and erdafitinib (pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitor) outside of clinical trial protocols. A 61-year-old patient with 3 days of metamorphopsia was found to have pseudovitelliform lesions in both eyes 6 weeks after initiation of erdafitinib. After discontinuation of this drug, his visual complaints resolved and his lesions decreased on optical coherence tomography. To our knowledge, this is the first case depicting reversible macular lesions with use of this newly approved medication outside of clinical trial protocols.