Female authorship trends and the effect of COVID-19 on cataract and refractive surgery literature.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether gender barriers persist specifically in the cataract and refractive surgery (CRS) literature. In addition, no literature exists investigating the long-term effect of COVID-19 on female authorship in ophthalmology past 2020. SETTING: Scopus 2015 to 2022. DESIGN: Retrospective data review. METHODS: Articles published in the Journal of Refractive Surgery and the Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery were recorded from January 2015 to February 2022 from Scopus. Articles with only 1 author or where gender could not be identified were excluded. The first author (FA) gender, senior author (SA) gender, affiliated country, type of literature, and number of citations were collected. Pearson chi-squared tests with phi coefficients and multivariate logistic regression were performed. RESULTS: 3153 articles were included in analysis. There were 910 works with female FAs and 648 with female SAs. Gender did not predict publishing in one journal over the other (P > .050). Women made up less than 30% of authorship of all types of literature, except for prospective/observational studies as FA (31.3%). Compared with before 2020, female FAs from 2020 onward were associated with increased retrospective analysis (phi = 0.072, P = .030) and letters/editorials (phi = 0.134, P < .001) but decreased case reports (phi = 0.087, P = .009) and "others" (phi = -0.164, P < .001). Similar associations were observed for female SAs. Females were more likely to publish in Asian countries. Female SAs predicted an increased likelihood of female FAs (odds ratio, 1.401, 95% CI, 1.165-1.684, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Gender disparities exist in authorship of the CRS literature. COVID-19 has altered the types of literature published by women, but men still publish most of all types of CRS research.

Elective inpatient video-EEG monitoring during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To evaluate the safety and feasibility of admission for elective video-EEG monitoring during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We performed a retrospective review of elective inpatient epilepsy monitoring unit admissions at our institution from May 3rd, 2020 to August 12th, 2020. All patients were screened by telephone for symptoms concerning infection or recent diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 or excess medical risk prior to admission. Patients deemed eligible for admission underwent testing via a nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 within three days of admission, and were directed to self-quarantine between testing and admission. The community seven-day case rate for SARS-CoV-2 (new cases per 100,000 population) ranged from 2.8 to 28.9 during the study period in our region. A total of 95 patients (63 adults and 32 children) were admitted. One adult patient developed mild SARS-CoV-2 infection and one adult patient tested positive for asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. These findings illustrate that inpatient epilepsy monitoring can be safely performed in carefully selected patients when appropriate processes are in place, even in the setting of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. There is a risk of nosocomial spread, and the potential benefits of admission should be balanced against the risks of infection.