Search

Objectives: There is a lack of data on the distribution of women first and senior authorships in pain journals. Using articles published in top North American pain journals over the past two decades, we sought to describe the prevalence and changes in women representation among first and last authors. Methods: We retrieved all published research articles in four pain journals (Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Clinical Journal of Pain, Pain and The Journal of Pain) from 2002 to 2021 using the easyPubMed package. Subsequently, the 'gender' package in R was used to determine authors' gender by first names. Trends in gender authorship change over time were assessed. Results: The final cohort consisted of 20,981 authors (from an initial total of 11,842 publications and 23,684 authors retrieved). Women authors were more often first compared to senior authors (46.7% vs. 30.5%). The proportion of women first authors (46.2% in 2002 vs. 48.4% in 2021) and women senior authors (22.4% in 2002 vs. 36.3% in 2021) increased over the course of the study period (all p‐value <0.001). The Clinical Journal of Pain having the highest percentage of women authors and Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine had the lowest percentage of women authors. Discussion: Our data demonstrated increasing women authorship in pain journals in the past 20 years, largely driven by an increase in first authorships. There still remains a large gap between first and senior authorship, indicative of disparity in the role that women play in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: The onset of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic brought together the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy (ESRA) to release a joint statement on anesthesia use. Their statement included a recommendation to use regional anesthesia whenever possible to mitigate the risk associated with aerosolizing procedures. We sought to examine the utilization of anesthesia in pediatric patients undergoing a surgical procedure for fractures or ligament repairs before and during COVID‐19. Methods: Using the Premier Health Database, we retrospectively analyzed pediatric patients undergoing a surgical intervention for fractures or ligament repair before and during COVID‐19. We sought to determine if there were differences in anesthesia use among this cohort during the two time periods. Fracture groups included shoulder and clavicle, humerus and elbow, forearm and wrist, hand and finger, pelvis and hip, femur and knee, leg and ankles, and foot and toes. Ligament procedures included surgical intervention for the anterior cruciate ligament and ulnar collateral ligament repair. Results: We identified a total of 5935 patients undergoing a surgical procedure for fractures or ligament repairs before and during COVID‐19. After exclusion for unknown anesthesia use, 2,807 patients were included in our cohort with 81.5% (n = 2288) of patients undergoing a procedure under general anesthesia, 6.4% (n = 181) under regional anesthesia, and 12.0% (n = 338) under combined general‐regional anesthesia. There did not appear to be a significant difference in the type of anesthesia used before and during COVID‐19 (p = 0.052). Conclusions: Our study did not identify a difference in anesthesia use before and during COVID‐19 among pediatric patients undergoing a surgical procedure. Further studies should estimate the change in anesthesia used during the time period when elective procedures were resumed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discharge against medical advice ( DAMA) is associated with greater risk of hospital readmission and higher morbidity, mortality, and costs, but with a rapidly increasing elderly inpatient population, there is a lack of national data on DAMA in this subgroup. The National Inpatient Sample (2003-2013 for trends, 2013 for multivariable analysis, n = 29,290,852) was used to describe trends in DAMA in elderly inpatients, to study diagnosis codes associated with admission, and to assess factors associated with DAMA using multivariable logistic regression. Odds ratios ( ORs) and 95% confidence intervals ( CIs) are reported for risk factors of interest. Although DAMA rates in individuals aged 65 and older were one fourth of those found in individuals aged 18 to 64, an increasing trend was found in both groups. From 2003 to 2013, rates increased in individuals aged 18 to 64 (from 1.44% to 1.78%) and in those aged 65 and older (from 0.37% to 0.42% (both P < .001). In both age groups, individuals admitted for mental illness had the highest risk of DAMA. Factors associated with higher adjusted odds of DAMA were generally similar between age groups, although risk of DAMA was higher in elderly adults than in those aged 18 to 64 for blacks ( OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.49-1.82 vs OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20), Hispanics ( OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.41-1.77 vs OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.87), and those in the lowest income quartile ( OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.43-1.72 vs OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.08-1.17), suggesting that race/ethnicity and poverty are more pronounced as risk factors for DAMA in elderly inpatients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Methods Results Conclusion Studies have demonstrated beneficial outcomes associated with timely surgical treatment of hip fracture. Subsequently, practice recommendations changed with 24–48 h as the recommended time for surgery from admission; however, recent data on timing of hip fracture surgery and how this impacts outcomes are lacking.This retrospective cohort study included patients who had a primary diagnosis of hip fracture and underwent a subsequent surgical repair within 3 days of admission (Premier Healthcare claims 2006–2021 data). The primary exposure of interest was time from hip fracture diagnosis to surgery (categorized as 0–1 day, 2 days, and 3 days). Outcomes included any major complication, mortality, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Mixed‐effects models measured the association between timing of surgery and outcomes. We report odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals.Among 501,267 surgical hip fracture patients, 26.0%, 56.0%, and 18.1% of patients received surgery on days 0–1, 2, and 3, respectively. The median ages were 83, 84, and 84 years old, and there were 73.3%, 72.2%, and 68.8% female in each group respectively. Compared with repair on day 0–1, hip fracture surgical treatment on day 2 or day 3 was associated with increased odds of major complications (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03–1.08 and OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.13–1.2), mortality (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02–1.14 and OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.12–1.28), and ICU admission (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04–1.09 and OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.32–1.4) after adjusting major comorbidities; all p < 0.001.Despite the publication of society guidelines in 2015, most fracture patients still received surgery on day 2 or day 3 of admission and were associated with worse outcomes. Balancing optimization of clinical factors with timing of surgery can be challenging, and further research is needed. Nonetheless, our findings reiterate the importance of timely surgical intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]