To describe prominent authorship positions held by women and the overall percentage of women co-authoring manuscripts submitted during the covid-19 pandemic compared with the previous two years.
Cross sectional study.
Nine specialist and two large general medical journals.
Authors of research manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021.
Primary outcome: first author\'s gender.
last and corresponding authors\' gender; number (percentage) of women on authorship byline in \"pre-pandemic\" period (1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019) and in \"covid-19\" and \"non-covid-19\" manuscripts during pandemic.
A total of 63 259 manuscripts were included. The number of female first, last, and corresponding authors respectively were 1313 (37.1%), 996 (27.9%), and 1119 (31.1%) for covid-19 manuscripts (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 230 (29.4%), 165 (21.1%), and 185 (22.9%)), compared with 8583 (44.9%), 6118 (31.2%), and 7273 (37.3%) for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts and 12 724 (46.0%), 8923 (31.4%), and 10 981 (38.9%) for pre-pandemic manuscripts. The adjusted odds ratio of having a female first author in covid-19 manuscripts was <1.00 in all groups (P<0.001) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest in Jan-May 2020: 0.55, 98.75% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.70). The adjusted odds ratio of having a woman as last or corresponding author was significantly lower for covid-19 manuscripts in all time periods (except for the two most recent periods for last author) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 0.74 (0.57 to 0.97) for last and 0.61 (0.49 to 0.77) for corresponding author). The odds ratios for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts were not significantly different compared with pre-pandemic manuscripts. The median percentage of female authors on the byline was lower for covid-19 manuscripts (28.6% in Jan-May 2020) compared with pre-pandemic (36.4%) and non-covid-19 pandemic manuscripts (33.3% in Jan-May 2020). Gender disparities in all prominent authorship positions and the proportion of women authors on the byline narrowed in the most recent period (Feb-May 2021) compared with the early pandemic period (Jan-May 2020) and were very similar to values observed for pre-pandemic manuscripts.
Women have been underrepresented as co-authors and in prominent authorship positions in covid-19 research, and this gender disparity needs to be corrected by those involved in academic promotion and awarding of research grants. Women attained some prominent authorship positions equally or more frequently than before the pandemic on non-covid-19 related manuscripts submitted at some time points during the pandemic.

To assess whether specific factors predict the development of ManuScript Rejection sYndrome (MiSeRY) in academic physicians.
Prospective pilot study; participants self-administered a questionnaire about full manuscript submissions (as first or senior author) rejected at least once during the past 5 years.
Single centre (tertiary institution).
Eight academic physician-authors.
Duration of grief. MiSeRY was pre-specified as prolonged grief (grief duration longer than the population median).
Eight participants provided data on 32 manuscripts with a total of 93 rejections (median, two rejections per manuscript; interquartile range [IQR], 1-3 rejections per manuscript). Median age at rejection was 37 years (IQR, 33-45 years); 86% of 80 rejections involved male authors (86%), 56 of the authors providing data about these rejections were first authors (60%). The median journal impact factor was 5.9 (IQR, 5.2-17). In 48 cases of rejection (52%), pre-submission expectations of success had been high, and in 54 cases (58%) the manuscripts had been sent for external review. Median grief duration was 3 hours (IQR, 1-24 h). Multivariate analysis indicated that higher pre-submission expectation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.0; 95% CI, 1.5-18), first author status (aOR, 9.5; 95% CI, 1.1-77), and external review (aOR, 19.0; 95% CI 2.9-126) were independent predictors of MiSeRY.
To help put authors out of their MiSeRY, journal editors could be more selective in the manuscripts they send for external review. Tempering pre-submission expectations and mastering the Coping and reLaxing Mechanisms (CaLM) of senior colleagues are important considerations for junior researchers.

Book chapters and journal articles dealing with spinal cord vascular malformations often reference Otto Hebold and Julius Gaupp, but frequently misrepresent the observations published by the two German authors in the late 19th century. The purpose of this paper is to provide a better appreciation of these important contributions based on abridged translations of original documents set in their historical context, notably regarding the landmark works of Brasch, Raymond and Cestan, and Lindenmann. It is concluded that Gaupp offered the first reliable description of a perimedullary arteriovenous fistula while the lesion reported by Hebold was not a spinal vascular malformation.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: The scarcity of trained teachers in charge of critical appraisal of medical literature is a major obstacle for the development of this learning in low-middle-income countries.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to show equivalence in providing training on critical appraisal by either junior or senior teacher in epidemiology.
METHODS: Learners, volunteer teachers of all specialties at the medical school of Blida (Algeria), were randomized between the two teachers in an equivalence randomized controlled trial. An adapted Fresno test scored out of 200 points was used to blindly measure learners\' performance.
RESULTS: Main characteristics of the two learners\' groups, of 33 each, who took the post-test, appeared to be similar at baseline. No significant difference was found between the two average scores attributed to the post-test, respectively 87.83 ± 27.44 and 84.31 ± 20.45 (95% confidence interval of the difference between these two means: -15.41; 8.38). That confidence interval, inside the equivalence interval of (-20, +20), revealed that junior teacher was sufficiently efficient to teach critical appraisal in comparison with a senior teacher.
CONCLUSIONS: Equivalence in providing training on critical appraisal by either junior or senior teacher could pave the way for other similar initiatives among all specialities.

In May 1810, the wife of Rihei Hiroseya, from Takayama, Hida Province, received an excision of a breast cancer tumor at Shunrinken in Hirayama, Kishu Province. Hirose asked Gaku Nomura, one of the Hanaoka\'s disciples, to make a manuscript describing his wife\'s surgery. In reply to Hirose\'s request, Nomura made the manuscript including her history and operative procedures, with illustrations of 13 other surgical cases of breast cancer, and he gave it to him the next month. The manuscript, titled Seishu sensei ryo nyugan zuki, is extant and this is considered to be the one that Nomura gave Hirose because there has been no other manuscript with this title and the manuscript is carefully recorded and bound. This suggests that there must be a draft of Seishu sensei ryo nyugan zuki. A manuscript titled Nyugan no zu is in the possession of the National Diet Library and it is considered to have been originally stitched temporarily, and then bound later. However, the contents of this manuscript are identical to those of Seishu sensei ryo nyugan zuki. In particular, illustrations in both manuscripts are highly likely have been made by the same illustrator, although sentences in both manuscripts are recorded by different hands. Thus, it is likely that Nomura asked an illustrator to make two sets of illustrations and Nomura used one for his presentation to Hirose and another for a draft, and that Nyugan no zu is a draft of Seishu sensei ryo nyugan zuki.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

The article offers an historical study, a new critical edition and the translation of the chapter De Puero virgine of Liber medicinae ex animalibus by Sextus Placitus, firstly edited by Sigerist and Howald in 1927. The book, dating to Late Antiquity, is part of a phyto -zootherapeutical corpus, trasmitted by the manuscript tradition in a single block of text whose central axis is represented by the Herbarium by Pseudo-Apuleius, the tractatus De herba vettonica attributed to Antonius Musa and the De taxone. Chapter 17 is devoted to pharmacological recipes whose ingredients are organic or human body parts; here is provided a critical edition based on the collation of three texts in the manuscript tradition, well testifying the particular vitality of medical prescription texts in Late Antiquity.

BACKGROUND: The timely publication of findings in peer-reviewed journals is a primary goal of clinical research. In clinical trials, the processes leading to publication can be complex from choice and prioritization of analytic topics through to journal submission and revisions. As little literature exists on the publication process for multicenter trials, we describe the development, implementation, and effectiveness of such a process in a multicenter trial.
METHODS: The Hepatitis C Antiviral Long-Term Treatment against Cirrhosis (HALT-C) trial included a data coordinating center (DCC) and clinical centers that recruited and followed more than 1,000 patients. Publication guidelines were approved by the steering committee, and the publications committee monitored the publication process from selection of topics to publication.
RESULTS: A total of 73 manuscripts were published in 23 peer-reviewed journals. When manuscripts were closely tracked, the median time for analyses and drafting of manuscripts was 8 months. The median time for data analyses was 5 months and the median time for manuscript drafting was 3 months. The median time for publications committee review, submission, and journal acceptance was 7 months, and the median time from analytic start to journal acceptance was 18 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Effective publication guidelines must be comprehensive, implemented early in a trial, and require active management by study investigators. Successful collaboration, such as in the HALT-C trial, can serve as a model for others involved in multidisciplinary and multicenter research programs.
BACKGROUND: The HALT-C Trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00006164).