Gender representation amongst orthodontic editorial boards: trends over time.

OBJECTIVE: To assess trends in gender representation within editorial boards of European and North American orthodontic journals from 2000 to 2023. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study of editorial boards of orthodontic journals. The first issue of volumes of identified journals from the years 2000, 2010 and 2023 were investigated to demonstrate trends over time. RESULTS: Eight journals were included. Across the period investigated, a total of 810 editorial board positions were identified with most positions held by men (657/810; 81.1%). The proportion of female editorial board members increased from 14.7% (36/245) in 2000 to 24.5% (73/298) in 2023. The number of female Editor-in-Chief increased from zero in 2000 to two in 2023. Three journals demonstrated a reduction in female representation from 2000 to 2023. CONCLUSION: Females remain underrepresented within editorial boards of orthodontic journals which is a key metric of presence and leadership in orthodontic academia.

Gender representation amongst editorials boards in United Kingdom surgical specialty journals.

Females remain under-represented in surgery in the United Kingdom and around the globe. Gender representation on journal editorial boards is one of the key metrics of gender representation within academic surgery. The aim of this study was to quantify gender representation within the editorial leadership of journals affiliated with UK surgical specialties. A web-based search for each of the UK surgical specialty associations was conducted, followed by identification of the endorsed journals for each one. As of August 2022, data on the gender of the editor-in-chief and other journal leadership positions, including associate, section, and deputy editors, were collated. Gender classification was completed using first-name recognition, verified by a web search using the name and institution provided. Managing editors without clinical backgrounds were excluded. Ten journals were identified for the following surgical specialties: General Surgery, Trauma and Orthopaedics, Neurosurgery, Cardiothoracic, Urology, Paediatric Surgery, Ear Nose and Throat, Oral and Maxillofacial, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, and Vascular Surgery. In total, 242 editorial positions were identified: 207 were held by males (82.8%) and 35 by females (17.2%). There were no female editors-in-chief. The average female proportion of editorial leadership per journal was 18.8%. One journal had no female editorial leadership representation. Overall, the number of females in editorial leadership positions is comparable to the current proportion of UK female consultant surgeons (13.7%). Journals with an under-representation of females in senior editorial leadership positions compared with the parent specialty should consider initiatives that will encourage diversity, promote greater gender parity, and champion female representation.

21st century gender trends of authorship in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.

Despite forming the majority in undergraduate medicine and dentistry programmes, females remain under-represented in all surgical specialties, including oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS). Efforts are ongoing to promote female uptake in surgery. Research output is a key metric in measuring leadership and academic advancement within a specialty. The aim of this study was to assess female authorship in research published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery from 2000-2020 with a retrospective cohort study of original articles and reviews published in the journal from five different volumes of the journal (2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020 as representative time points). The gender of the first and last authors were assessed for gender by first name recognition and verified with a web-search of the author using their stated institutional affiliation when this was not clear. Articles were excluded if the gender of one of the first or last author could not be determined. A total of 501 articles were included with the gender of 1002 authors analysed. 173 (17.3%) authors were female, and 828 (82.7%) were male. The most common author combination was male-male (70.3%) and the least common female-female (4.8%). The proportion of female authors increased over time from 9.3% in 2000 to 23.4% in 2020. Females remain under-represented within surgery, but female presence in academic output is increasing at a similar rate to the numbers of female uptake in the clinical workforce which is a promising sign and indicative of progress towards gender parity.

How to appraise the literature: basic principles for the busy clinician - part 2: systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

With the increasing numbers of primary research papers being published in dentistry and healthcare in general, it is almost impossible for busy clinicians to keep up with the literature. Reviews summarising the outcomes of trials can therefore be a considerably efficient tool for obtaining the relevant information about what works and what does not. To this end, systematic reviews are critical in summarising the best available evidence and providing an indication of its strength. However, as with clinical trials, they can be difficult to interpret, of varying quality and dependent on the studies they include. This is the second part of a two-part series and will discuss the principles of critically appraising systematic reviews and meta-analyses. It follows on from part one, which focused on appraising randomised controlled trials.

How to appraise the literature: basic principles for the busy clinician - part 1: randomised controlled trials.

Critical appraisal is the process of carefully, judiciously and systematically examining research to adjudicate its trustworthiness and its value and relevance in clinical practice. The first part of this two-part series will discuss the principles of critically appraising randomised controlled trials. The second part will discuss the principles of critically appraising systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Evidence-based dentistry (EBD) is the integration of the dentist's clinical expertise, the patient's needs and preferences and the most current, clinically relevant evidence. Critical appraisal of the literature is an invaluable and indispensable skill that dentists should possess to help them deliver EBD.This article seeks to act as a refresher and guide for generalists, specialists and the wider readership, so that they can efficiently and confidently appraise research - specifically, randomised controlled trials - that may be pertinent to their daily clinical practice.

Validation of a post operative complication risk prediction algorithm in a non-head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cohort.

Risk-adjusted algorithms in surgical audit attempt to adjust for patient case mix and complexity in order that published outcomes fairly reflect surgical performance and quality of care. Such risk-adjustment models have applied to head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We test one algorithm, currently embedded in the oncology and reconstruction dataset within the Quality and Outcomes in Oral and Maxillofacial (QOMS) Audit, which is an artificial neural network, for its predictive accuracy on a surgical cohort receiving curative surgery for non-HNSCC pathology. A single centre retrospective case note audit of post operative complications between 2010 and 2020 was conducted on patients having curative surgery for non-HNSCC pathology. The observed complication rate was compared to the predicted probability of complications in order to test the performance of the complication risk-adjustment model. Of 1591 non-HNSCC patients, 58 met the inclusion criteria with a 30-day complication rate of 8/58 (13%). The artificial neural network predicted a complication rate of 20/58 (27%). Sensitivity (0.75), specificity (0.72) and overall accuracy (0.72) suggest acceptable discrimination. Hosmer-Lemershow Goodness of Fit test was good (p = 0.55) suggesting acceptable calibration though over-prediction of complication rate in the highest risk patents was observed. This external validation series suggests the algorithm can be applied to the non-HNSCC cohort, though some refinement of the algorithm is required to account for over-prediction of complications for higher-risk patients. With further analysis a robust means of risk adjusting for the non-HNSCC cohort should be possible.

Gender representation within editorial leadership positions of oral and maxillofacial journals.

Females are under-represented in surgery, and in leadership roles within academia. The Royal College of Surgeons of England and British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (BAOMS) have both initiated programmes that aim to promote equality, diversity, and inclusion in gender representation. This article quantifies the gender representation among editorial boards of oral and maxillofacial journals, and further reinforces the fact that more work is needed to promote gender parity.

Referrals to Urgent Dental Centres During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multi-Site Analysis Research Project.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic enforced the cessation of routine dentistry and the creation of local urgent dental care systems in the UK. General dental practices are obligated by NHS guidance to remain open and provide remote consultation and referral where appropriate to patients having pain or problems. AIMS: To compare two urgent dental centres with different triage and referral systems with regard to quality and appropriateness of referrals, and patient management outcomes. METHODS: 110 consecutive referrals received by a primary care urgent dental centre and a secondary care urgent dental centre were assessed. It was considered whether the patients referred had access to remote primary care dental services, fulfilled the criteria required to be deemed a dental emergency as mandated by NHS guidance, and what the outcomes of referrals were. RESULTS: At the primary care centre, 100% of patients were referred by general dental practitioners and had access to remote primary care dental services. 95.5% of referrals were deemed appropriate and were seen for treatment. At the secondary care site, 94.5% of referrals were direct from the patient by contacting NHS 111. 40% had received triaging to include 'advice, analgesia and antimicrobial' from a general dental practitioner, and 25.5% were deemed appropriate and resulted in treatment. CONCLUSION: Urgent dental centres face many issues, and it would seem that easy access to primary care services, collaboration between primary care clinicians and urgent dental centres, and training of triaging staff are important in operating a successful system.