Abstract-Two or more antihypertensive agents are increasingly used to control blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive patients. However, it is unclear whether fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of 2 antihypertensive agents in a single tablet provide greater benefits than the corresponding free-drug components given separately. A meta-analysis was performed to assess compliance, persistence, BP control, and safety associated with FDCs in comparison with their free-drug components. Fifteen included studies (nϭ32331) reported on Ն1 of the evaluated outcomes. In 3 cohort studies and 2 trials reporting on drug compliance (nϭ17 999), the use of FDCs was associated with significantly better compliance (odds ratio: Pϭ0.19). In 9 trials (nϭ1671) with BP data, use of an FDC was associated with nonsignificant changes in systolic and diastolic BPs of 4.1 mm Hg (95% CI: Ϫ9.8 to 1.5; Pϭ0.15) and 3.1 mm Hg (95% CI: Ϫ7.1 to 0.9; Pϭ0.13), respectively. In these BP-lowering comparisons, there was heterogeneity associated with differences in study design but no publication bias. In conclusion, compared with free-drug combinations, FDCs of antihypertensive agents are associated with a significant improvement in compliance and with nonsignificant beneficial trends in BP and adverse effects. (Hypertension. 2010;55:399-407.)

Although there is no evidence that imported tuberculosis increases the incidence of the disease in host countries, the rise in migration worldwide raises concerns regarding the adequacy of surveillance and control of immigrant-associated tuberculosis in low incidence countries. Assessing the performance of screening of immigrants for tuberculosis is key to rationalising control policies for the detection and management of immigrant-associated tuberculosis.We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the yield of active screening for tuberculosis among new immigrants at the point of entry.The yield for pulmonary tuberculosis was 3.5 cases per 1,000 screened (95% CI 2.9-4.1; I 2 594%); for refugees, asylum seekers and regular immigrants the estimates were 11.9 (95% CI 6.7-17.2; I 2 592%), 2.8 (95% CI 2.0-3.7; I 2 596%) and 2.7 (95% CI 2.0-3.4; I 2 581%), respectively.The yield estimates for immigrants from Europe, Africa and Asia were 2.4 (95% CI 1.3-3.4; I 2 551.5%), 6.5 (95% CI 3.2-10.0; I 2 562%) and 11.2 (95% CI 6.2-16.1; I 2 595%), respectively.These results provide useful data to inform the development of coherent policies and rational screening services for the detection of immigrant-associated tuberculosis.

Background Despite women constituting over half of new doctors, gender disparity remains an issue. Surgery has shown particularly slow progress towards gender parity. This study aimed to quantify gender representation within editorial boards of the highest ranking international general surgery journals. Methods Surgical journals were collated using two indices: SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and Journal Impact Factor (JIF). Non-general surgery journals were excluded. Journals were contacted, requesting gender editorial team demographics. Editorial board data were collected via journal websites on 28 November 2019. Results The top 25 general surgery journals according to SJR and JIF ranking methods were determined, identifying 28 unique journals. Editorial board data were publicly available for 27 of these 28 surgical journals, and were examined. Women accounted for 20.2 per cent (568 of 2816) of total editorial board positions. Women constituted 11 per cent (4 of 36) of editor-in-chief positions, 32 per cent (29 of 92) of deputy editors, and 19.1 per cent (369 of 1935) of general editorial board positions. Conclusion The findings demonstrate gender disparity within editorial boards of the most prominent general surgery journals.

Introduction Despite women constituting over half of new UK doctors, and a similar proportion worldwide, gender disparity remains an issue throughout academic medicine. Surgery has shown particularly slow progress towards gender parity. This study aims to quantify gender representation within editorial boards of the top 25 general surgical journals. Method All surgical journals were collated using the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and Journal Impact Factor (JIF). Non general surgery journals were excluded. Journals were contacted requesting gender editorial team demographics. Editorial board data was collected via journal websites on 20th November 2019. Result The top 25 surgical journals were determined through SJR and JIF ranking methods. Editorial board data was publicly available for 31 of these 32 different surgical journals. This data was then examined. Women accounted for 18.4% (576/3135) of total editorial board positions. Women constituted 12.5% (5/40) of Editors-in-Chief positions, 31.6% (31/98) of Deputy Editors and 17.2% (416/2415) of general editorial board positions. Conclusion For the first time, gender disparity has been demonstrated within editorial boards of the most prominent general surgery journals. The implications of such significant gender disparity are wide reaching. Action should be taken to champion fair female representation, eliminate risk of bias and provide more visible female role models in academic surgery. Take-home message For the first time, this study demonstrates gender disparity in Editorial boards of major general surgery journals. Action should be taken to champion fair female representation, eliminate risk of bias and provide more visible female role models in academic surgery.

Introduction As an increasing number of specialties have begun to adopt robotic surgery (RS), its prevalence within the NHS is continually rising. This study aims to establish stakeholders’ opinions on the opportunities and challenges of the widespread adoption of RS. Method Participants were recruited through social media platforms such as LinkedIn or via university affiliations and current RS research. Semi-structured interviews of eight surgeons and five company representatives were conducted online. Transcripts were analysed to formulate themes surrounding the opportunities and challenges of RS. Results This study identified six common themes amongst shareholders: Perspective, Ethics, Impact of Robotics, Training, Adoption and Finances. The success rates and quality of results offered by RS make it a recognised future surgical staple amongst interviewees. However, the technology remains a contentious subject amongst surgeons, with many doubting whether the benefits outweigh the costs associated with implementation. Such reservations are further exacerbated by the absence of a formal training pathway. National guidelines are necessary to embed RS within the NHS infrastructure, allowing greater standardisation for patients and surgeons. The importance of patient education to address misconceptions was emphasised. Despite current high costs, robotic technology is forecasted to become cheaper with greater use and increased market competition. Interviewees stressed that responsibility for errors lies with the surgeon, but with the manufacturer for instrument malfunctions. Conclusions This study highlights stakeholders’ views on the opportunities and challenges of RS. The identified themes should form the basis of the proposed recommendations to facilitate a more widespread adoption of RS.