Gender disparities in authorship of heart failure (HF) guideline citations and clinical trials have not been examined.
We identified authors of publications referenced in Class I Recommendations in United States (n=173) and European (n=100) HF guidelines and of publications of all HF trials with >400 participants (n=118) published between 2001 and 2016. Authors\' genders were determined, and changes in authorship patterns over time were evaluated with linear regression and nonparametric testing.
The median proportion of women authors per publication was 20% (interquartile range [IQR], 8%-33%) in United States guidelines, 14% (IQR, 2%-20%) in European guidelines, and 11% (IQR, 4%-20%) in HF trials. The proportion of women authors increased modestly over time in United States and European guidelines\' references (β=0.005 and 0.003, respectively, from 1986 to 2016; P<0.001) but not in HF trials (12.5% [IQR, 0%-20%] in 2001-2004 to 8.9% [IQR, 0%-20%] in 2013-2016; P>0.50). Overall proportions of women as first or last authors in HF trials (16%) did not change significantly over time (P=0.60). North American HF trials had the highest likelihood of having a woman as first or senior author (24%). HF trials with a woman first or senior author were associated with a higher proportion of enrolled female participants (39% versus 26%, P=0.01).
In HF practice guidelines and trials, few women are authors of pivotal publications. Higher number of women authors is associated with higher enrollment of women in HF trials. Barriers to authorship and representation of women in HF guidelines and HF trial leadership need to be addressed.

The number of patients undergoing surgery on the thoracic and thoraco-abdominal aorta has been steadily increasing over the past decade. This document aims to give guidance to authors reporting on results in aortic surgery by clarifying definitions of aortic pathologies, open and endovascular techniques and by listing clinical parameters that should be provided for full presentation of patients\' clinical profile and in particular, their outcome. The aim is to help find a common language in the treatment of aortic disease and to contribute to a better understanding of this patient population.

It is our hope that increased use and awareness of guideline criteria will allow for the manuscripts, at the time of submission, to be more complete and aid our reviewers in better understanding, and thus critiquing, the methodology and results of submissions they receive. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Pain might be a powerful diagnostic tool, but it is at the same time an intensely private and subjective experience that represents a formidable problem in the communication between physician and patient. Galen addresses (principally in De locis affectis) the problem of constructing a consistent and univocal terminology for different pain sensations, rejecting the system proposed earlier by Archigenes on the grounds that he relies on metaphorical descriptors which indiscriminately incorporate terms belonging to information generated by all the senses, fails to conform to patient testimony, and refers to ambiguous concepts. Galen sets himself the task of developing a system of proper or literal (kyrios) terms for pain sensations, even despite the apparent ineffability of certain sensations and laymen\'s imprecise self-analysis and description of their suffering. His pain vocabulary, developed through a combination of consensus between patients and physicians\' expert descriptions of their own pain, promises to link terminology univocally to sensation, turning patients\' testimony about their subjective experience of pain into universally applicable diagnostic guidance.

暂无摘要。

Recent reports have highlighted studies in biomedical research that cannot be reproduced, tending to undermine the credibility, relevance and sustainability of the research process. To address this issue, a number of factors can be monitored to improve the overall probability of reproducibility. These include: (i) shortcomings in experimental design and execution that involve hypothesis conceptualization, statistical analysis, and data reporting; (ii) investigator bias and error; (iii) validation of reagents including cells and antibodies; and (iv) fraud. Historically, research data that have undergone peer review and are subsequently published are then subject to independent replication via the process of self-correction. This often leads to refutation of the original findings and retraction of the paper by which time considerable resources have been wasted in follow-on studies. New NIH guidelines focused on experimental conduct and manuscript submission are being widely adopted in the peer-reviewed literature. These, in their various iterations, are intended to improve the transparency and accuracy of data reporting via the use of checklists that are often accompanied by \"best practice\" guidelines that aid in validating the methodologies and reagents used in data generation. The present Editorial provides background and context to a newly developed checklist for submissions to Biochemical Pharmacology that is intended to be clear, logical, useful and unambiguous in assisting authors in preparing manuscripts and in facilitating the peer review process. While currently optional, development of this checklist based on user feedback will result in it being mandatory within the next 12 months.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。