Advanced degrees, gender, and professional rank in surgery, disparities in academic medicine.

INTRODUCTION: Women comprise nearly half of all residents in training, yet there is a significant disparity of women in academic leadership. Surgical subspecialties are dominated by men in both percentages of physicians and leadership positions. We sought to examine the association of advanced non-medical degrees with academic rank and gender in academic surgery departments. METHODS: Faculty from 126 ACGME-accredited academic medical centers were analyzed to identify faculty gender as described in online biographical information, advanced non-medical degrees, academic rank, and additional leadership positions held. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: 4536 surgeons were identified, 69.3% men, 27.3% female, and 3.3% unlisted. Female surgeons were more likely to hold advanced non-doctoral degrees than men (18.2% vs. 13.8%, p â€‹< â€‹0.002). Among those with advanced degrees, PhDs were held by 3.3% of women and 5.7% of men (p â€‹< â€‹0.001). Female surgeons were less likely to hold the rank of Professor than male surgeons (15.8% vs 30.3%, p â€‹< â€‹0.001), and more likely to hold the rank of Assistant Professor than male surgeons (51.9% vs 36.1%, p â€‹< â€‹0.001). This likelihood remained true when analyzing only surgeons with one or more advanced non-medical degrees. Men were more likely to be Chair of Surgery (3.0%), Division Chief (9.6%), and Research Chair (0.5%); compared to women (1.3%; 4.8%; 0.2%; p â€‹= â€‹0.001, <0.001, 0.21 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There continues to be a significant male predominance in general surgery. Gender discrepancy is also seen in professional rank and academic title despite women holding more advanced degrees. Advanced degrees are currently considered academic qualifications, but this does not reflect surgical academic leadership roles or rank.

Analysis of Research Productivity and Assessment of Geographical Region in the General Surgery Match: How Much is Enough?

OBJECTIVES: The number of publications of prospective surgical residents has steadily increased over the past decade as the emphasis on research output has become paramount. However, the reported data from the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) does not discriminate amongst impact, author position, and region of matched residents. This study aimed to evaluate categorical general surgery postgraduate year 1 (PGY-1) residents' research productivity by programs' research impact and region of the United States and support the need for additional public data on research metrics of accepted applicants. We hypothesize that residents accepted to top quartile schools will have more total and first author publications and higher h-index compared to residents in the other quartiles, and research metrics would not differ amongst the regions. DESIGN: The Doximity Residency Navigator was used to sort general surgery programs based on research output, which was determined by the average h-index of residents. All 2021 matriculating PGY-1 categorical residents from the top two programs from each region and quartile that met study criteria were included in the analysis. Web of Science (WoS) citation database was used to collect prior to residency and current total publications, and the first, last, and corresponding author positions of these publications. Residents' h-index and various research metrics reported by WoS were recorded. Descriptive statistics were used to examine the association between quartile and region. SETTING: Categorical general surgery residency programs throughout the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Categorical PGY-1 general surgery residents. RESULTS: The median total number of publications prior to residency was 1 (IQR = 0-5). The median total number of first-author publications prior to residency was 0 (IQR = 0-1), and the current h-index was 0 (IQR = 0-2). The top quartile had more total and first author publications prior to residency, while the other quartiles had similar metrics. Each region had similar total publications and h-index. CONCLUSIONS: Research output is significant for applicants applying to top-quartile research programs compared to the other 3 quartiles and is relatively similar throughout all regions of the United States. Public data is limited to future applicants.

HIV testing technologies after two decades of evolution.

Over the past two decades, HIV diagnostics have been essential in detecting and monitoring infection, and continue to play a major role in saving lives throughout the world. As technology evolved, screening, confirmatory, and HIV monitoring assays have been improved and offer better alternatives to address blood screening, surveillance, diagnosis, and patient management. Molecular methods are critical in detecting early infection and for managing patients on anti retroviral therapy whose viral infection may become resistant to therapy. In addition, modifications to conventional methods have introduced new assays, such as sensitive/less sensitive (detuned) assays that can estimate when someone was infected, thereby providing a useful tool for epidemiologic incidence estimates and enrollment into specific intervention programmes for recently infected persons. Many of the newly evolving technologies are essential for use in resource-limited countries because they can address cost issues, limited infrastructure, and a lack of formally trained personnel. Newer rapid HIV kits can be stored in a wide range of temperatures (2-30 degrees C) to address cold-chain issues, can use easily-collected fingerstick blood and oral fluids, and have one-step procedures that are relatively foolproof. Manual CD4 lymphocyte count assays that require only a light microscope and haemacytometer and more simple assays to estimate viral load are appropriate for developing countries where sophisticated instrumentation cannot be supported. Technologic advances with HIV diagnostics continue to address outstanding and new issues associated with diagnosis and the monitoring of infection by providing more simplified, cost-effective, and accurate testing throughout the world.

A 10-minute, US Food and Drug Administration-approved HIV test.

It is now an established fact that rapid HIV tests have important applications in a number of testing situations. Currently, four rapid HIV assays have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, including the one discussed in this review. A rapid, lateral flow HIV assay was evaluated at the University of Maryland, USA, one of several sites involved in the clinical evaluation. Samples used in the evaluation totaled 9000 and consisted of serum, plasma and venous whole-blood sets of samples from 3000 study subjects that included population groups considered to be at high risk for HIV infection (n=1000), from HIV-positive individuals (n=1000), and from population groups considered at low risk for HIV infection (n=1000). US Food and Drug Administration-licensed screening and confirmatory assays were used as reference tests. The rapid assay exhibited a sensitivity of 100% across all three sample media and exhibited a specificity of 99.8% using whole blood and plasma and 99.7% using serum. This rapid assay is an excellent addition to the existing US Food and Drug Administration-approved rapid HIV tests, and provides versatility by allowing the testing of venipuncture and fingerstick whole-blood samples in addition to serum and plasma.