Search

Background: Gender-based differences among cardiology professionals have been reported in North America and Europe. However, the perspective of Latin American cardiologists remains unexplored. Objectives: The objectives of the study were to analyze the gender gap perspective among cardiologists from Latin America. Methods: A cross-sectional study using an online survey directed to Latin American cardiologists from five different cardiology societies. The survey included questions on demographic data, professional development in the field of cardiology, and perceived barriers in clinical practice. Results: A total of 240 professionals were surveyed, of which 41.7% were women (100) and 58.3% were men (140). The majority of women tend to work in the subfields of clinical cardiology and cardiovascular imaging. Women were underrepresented as heads of departments, earn less, and report less work satisfaction than men. The barriers that female cardiologists face at their workplace include labor discrimination, sexual harassment, family-related concerns, and lack of career development. Conclusions: The survey points toward the prevalence of a gender gap among cardiologists in Latin America, which is primarily driven by labor discrimination, sexual harassment, family-related concerns, and lack of career development among female cardiologists. Actions aimed at addressing this issue should be considered by different parties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Previous publications demonstrated that the presentation of treatment benefits in terms of relative risk reduction (RRR) rather than in terms of absolute risk reduction (ARR) or number of patients to treat (NNT) might favor the perception of outcome effectiveness. The objective was to perform a cognitive evaluation to assess how the manner in which risks and benefits of screening methods and treatments are presented can affect medical care decisiontaking in a sample of cardiologists. Methods: Four-hundred and six Latin American cardiologists answered a questionnaire reporting the results of clinical trials presented as RRR, ARR or NNT, associated or not to biased graphs. Results: Cardiologists' decision-taking was different when comparing treatment benefits presented as RRR (62.2%) vs. ARR (40.4%) (p = 0.000000), and as RRR vs. NNT (44.4%) (p = 0.000000). However, their decision-taking was similar when information was presented as NNT or ARR (p = 0.073). The inclusion of biased graphs was misinterpreted as an actual data difference (RRR: 61.6% vs. ARR: 14.0%, p = 0.000000). Conclusions: This study demonstrated that Latin American cardiologists could misinterpret statistical data when information of clinical trials is presented in terms of RRR. We emphasize the need to enhance cardiologists' training in quantitative techniques, to improve medical care decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Latin America has dramatically increased the number of articles published from 1995 to 2002, but the individual contribution of each country appears to be very unequal. Objectives: To analyze the production of articles on Cardiology research published in Latin American countries in the past years in international journals. Methods: A bibliography search was carried out throughout PubMed in regards to biomedical articles in general and on Cardiology in particular, corresponding to the period 1987 - 2006. Results: A total of 106 871 biomedical articles was identified, and 11 416 on Cardiology published between 1997 and 2006 by Latin American countries. This corresponds to 10.6% of articles on cardiovascular disease over the total. Brazil, Mexico and Argentina contributed with 80% of the publications in Latin America in the same period. The magnitude of growth since 1987 was between 5.9- and 15-fold for these countries. In regards to Brazil, since 1998 a significant increased number of publications was noted compared to Mexico and Argentina (P = 0.0001). The impact factor of the journals where each country published during 2006 showed that it was in average higher in the publications from Chile and Argentina compared to Brazil and Mexico (P <0.001). Conclusions: The scientific production in Cardiology from Latin America shows dramatic differences among the countries, and Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina alone provide 80% of the publications. Brazil seems to have led the region for 20 years, especially since 1998. From the quality of the articles point of view, considering the impact factor, Chile and Argentina appear to be better positioned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Previous publications demonstrated that the presentation of treatment benefits in terms of relative risk reduction (RRR) rather than in terms of absolute risk reduction (ARR) or number of patients to treat (NNT) might favor the perception of outcome effectiveness. The objective was to perform a cognitive evaluation to assess how the manner in which risks and benefits of screening methods and treatments are presented can affect medical care decision-taking in a sample of cardiologists., Methods: Four-hundred and six Latin American cardiologists answered a questionnaire reporting the results of clinical trials presented as RRR, ARR or NNT, associated or not to biased graphs., Results: Cardiologists' decision-taking was different when comparing treatment benefits presented as RRR (62.2%) vs. ARR (40.4%) (p=0.000000), and as RRR vs. NNT (44.4%) (p=0.000000). However, their decision-taking was similar when information was presented as NNT or ARR (p=0.073). The inclusion of biased graphs was misinterpreted as an actual data difference (RRR: 61.6% vs. ARR: 14.0%, p=0.000000)., Conclusions: This study demonstrated that Latin American cardiologists could misinterpret statistical data when information of clinical trials is presented in terms of RRR. We emphasize the need to enhance cardiologists' training in quantitative techniques, to improve medical care decision-making., (Copyright © 2013 Instituto Nacional de Cardiología Ignacio Chávez. Published by Masson Doyma México S.A. All rights reserved.)