IMPORTANCE Women are underrepresented in academic neurology, and the reasons for the underrepresentation are unclear. OBJECTIVE To explore potential sex differences in top-ranked academic neurology programs by comparing the number of men and women at each academic faculty rank and how many articles each group has published. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Twenty-nine top-ranked neurology programs were identified by combining the top 20 programs listed on either the 2016 or 2017 Doximity Residency Navigator tool with the top 20 programs listed in the US News and World Report ranking of Best Graduate Schools. An internet search of the departmental websites was performed between December 1, 2015, and April 30, 2016. For each faculty member on a program site, the following biographical information was obtained: first name, last name, academic institution, sex, academic faculty rank, educational leadership (clerkship, fellowship, or residency director/assistant director), and year of medical school graduation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES To compare the distribution of men vs women and the number of publications for men vs women at each academic faculty rank. Secondary analyses included Scopus h-index, book authorship, educational leadership (clerkship, residency, or fellowship director/assistant director), and clinical activity as inferred through Medicare claims data in men vs women after controlling for years since medical school graduation. RESULTS Of 1712 academic neurologists in our sample, 528 (30.8%) were women and 1184 (69.2%) were men (P < .001). Men outnumbered women at all academic faculty ranks, and the difference increased with advancing rank (instructor/lecturer, 59.4% vs 40.5%; assistant professor, 56.7% vs 43.3%; associate professor, 69.8% vs 30.2%; and professor, 86.2% vs 13.8%). After controlling for clustering and years since medical school graduation, men were twice as likely as women to be full professors (odds ratio [OR], 2.06; 95% CI, 1.40-3.01), whereas men and women had the same odds of being associate professors (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82-1.32). Men had more publications than women at all academic ranks, but the disparity in publication number decreased with advancing rank (men vs women after adjusting for years since medical school graduation: assistant professor [exponentiated coefficient, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.57-2.12]; associate professor [1.53; 95% CI, 1.22-1.91]; and full professor [1.36; 95% CI, 1.09-1.69]). Men had a higher log Scopus h-index than women after adjustment (linear coefficient, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34-0.55). There was no significant association between sex and clinical activity (linear coefficient, 0.02; 95% CI, −0.10 to 0.13), educational leadership (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.85-1.40), or book authorship (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 0.82-9.29) after adjusting for years since medical school graduation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Men outnumber women at all faculty ranks in top-ranked academic neurology programs, and the discrepancy increases with advancing rank. Men have more publications than women at...
BackgroundThere is increasing need for peer reviewers as the scientific literature grows. Formal education in biostatistics and research methodology during residency training is lacking. In this pilot study, we addressed these issues by evaluating a novel method of teaching residents about biostatistics and research methodology using peer review of standardized manuscripts. We hypothesized that mentored peer review would improve resident knowledge and perception of these concepts more than non-mentored peer review, while improving review quality.MethodsA partially blinded, randomized, controlled multi-center study was performed. Seventy-eight neurology residents from nine US neurology programs were randomized to receive mentoring from a local faculty member or not. Within a year, residents reviewed a baseline manuscript and four subsequent manuscripts, all with introduced errors designed to teach fundamental review concepts. In the mentored group, mentors discussed completed reviews with residents. Primary outcome measure was change in knowledge score between pre- and post-tests, measuring epidemiology and biostatistics knowledge. Secondary outcome measures included level of confidence in the use and interpretation of statistical concepts before and after intervention, and RQI score for baseline and final manuscripts.ResultsSixty-four residents (82%) completed initial review with gradual decline in completion on subsequent reviews. Change in primary outcome, the difference between pre- and post-test knowledge scores, did not differ between mentored (−8.5%) and non-mentored (−13.9%) residents (p = 0.48). Significant differences in secondary outcomes (using 5-point Likert scale, 5 = strongly agree) included mentored residents reporting enhanced understanding of research methodology (3.69 vs 2.61; p = 0.001), understanding of manuscripts (3.73 vs 2.87; p = 0.006), and application of study results to clinical practice (3.65 vs 2.78; p = 0.005) compared to non-mentored residents. There was no difference between groups in level of interest in peer review (3.00 vs 3.09; p = 0.72) or the quality of manuscript review assessed by the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) (3.25 vs 3.06; p = 0.50).ConclusionsWe used mentored peer review of standardized manuscripts to teach biostatistics and research methodology and introduce the peer review process to residents. Though knowledge level did not change, mentored residents had enhanced perception in their abilities to understand research methodology and manuscripts and apply study results to clinical practice.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41073-017-0032-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Introduction Denervation of the paraspinal muscles in spinal disorders is frequently attributed to radiculopathy. Therefore, persons with lumbar spinal stenosis causing asymmetrical symptoms should have asymmetrical paraspinal denervation. Methods 73 persons with clinical lumbar spinal stenosis, aged 55 to 85, completed a pain drawing and underwent masked electrodiagnostic testing including bilateral paraspinal mapping and testing of 6 muscles on the most symptomatic (or randomly chosen) limb. Results With the exception of 10 subjects with unilateral thigh pain (p=0.043), there was no relationship between side of pain and paraspinal mapping score for any subgroups (symmetrical pain, pain into one calf only). Among those with positive limb EMG (tested on one side), no relationship between side of pain and paraspinal EMG score was found. Discussion The evidence suggests that paraspinal denervation in spinal stenosis may not be due to radiculopathy, but rather due to stretch or damage to the posterior primary ramus.
Discomfort is an unavoidable part of electrodiagnostic (EDX) studies. The most readily modifiable mediator of electromyography (EMG)-associated pain is muscle selection. Interventions that may reduce pain include vapocoolant spray, ibuprofen, and techniques such as slapping or stretching the skin. Needlestick injuries to health care workers carry the risk of transmitting bloodborne illnesses, but other infectious complications of EDX studies are very rare. EMG probably contributes to asymptomatic hemorrhage in approximately 1% of patients, but clinically significant bleeding has only been reported a few times. Therapeutic anticoagulation does not significantly increase this risk. With standard procedures, there have been no reports of patients developing cardiac arrhythmia from nerve conduction studies. No special precautions are necessary in patients with implantable cardiac devices or intravenous lines. There is a small risk of pneumothorax associated with EMG of the diaphragm and chest wall muscles. Several techniques have been suggested to improve the safety of diaphragm EMG. Muscle Nerve 55: 149-159, 2017.
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.