BACKGROUND: Although there has been a considerable increase in the representation of women in medicine, a gender gap still exists with regard to leadership positions. This gender discrepancy has been identified in the field of anesthesiology, in terms of first and senior authorship, as well as in general composition of editorial boards in Anesthesiology and Anesthesia & Analgesia. The goal of this study is to examine the current representation of women in editorial boards of anesthesia journals with respect to the hierarchy of different editorial positions and to assess whether there has been improvement toward equity in recent years. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed for anesthesiology journals indexed in the Scimago Journal and Country Rank in May 2020. The editorial boards of the top 20 journals by impact factor were analyzed. Editorial board members were categorized based on their title. Gender was assigned using images or pronouns on research databases or hospital-affiliated websites. The percentage of women within each category was calculated. When available, the year the editors obtained their medical degree was collected. A binomial proportion test was used to analyze the distribution of women overall and among editorial roles, compared to the proportion of women anesthesiologists (26%). A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare time since medical degree between genders. Additionally, women representation in anesthesiology editorial boards in 2020 was compared to 2010. RESULTS: A total of 19 journals were included in this study, as 1 journal did not disclose editorial board membership. Overall, women occupied 18% of all editorial board positions. All editors-in-chief and assistant/associate/deputy editors-in-chief were men. Women consisted of 17.1% of executive/section/senior editors, 17.9% of editors, and 20.6% of associate/assistant editors. There were significantly fewer women editorial board members than the percentage of women anesthesiologists (18% vs 26%; P < .001). Editorial boards from 2010 were available for 14 journals, and of these journals, women comprised 12% of editorial board members in 2010 compared to 19% in 2020 (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that in anesthesiology journals, women are underrepresented at all editorial levels, especially at higher levels. As editorial boards have a significant impact on which articles are published by a journal and thereby significant influence on the specialty as a whole, the lack of gender equity in editorial boards should be addressed.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the number of women in medicine has increased, women remain underrepresented in leadership positions, specifically in medical societies. Specialty societies in medicine are influential in networking, career advancement, research and education opportunities, and providing awards and recognition. The goals of this study are to examine the representation of women in leadership positions in anesthesiology societies compared to women society members and women anesthesiologists and to analyze the trend in women society presidents over time. METHODS: A list of anesthesiology societies was obtained from the American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) website. Society leadership positions were obtained via the societies’ websites. Gender was determined by images on the society website and images or pronouns on hospital websites and research databases. The percentage of women presidents, vice presidents/presidents-elect, secretaries/treasurers, board of directors/council members, and committee chairs was calculated. The percentage of women in society leadership positions was compared to the percentage of women society members when available, and the percentage of women anesthesiologists in the workforce (26%) using binomial difference of unpaired proportions tests. The trend of women presidents from 1980 to 2020 was analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage trend test. RESULTS: A total of 13 societies were included in this study. Overall, women held 32.6% (189/580) of leadership positions. 38.5% (5/13) of presidents, 17.6% (3/17) of presidents-elect/vice presidents, and 45% (9/20) of secretaries/treasurers were women. In addition, 30.0% (91/303) of board of directors/council members and 34.2% (90/263) of committee chairs were women. The percentage of women holding society leadership positions was significantly greater than the percentage of women anesthesiologists in the workforce (P < .001), as was the percentage of women as committee chairs (P = .003). The percentage of women society members was available for 9 of 13 societies (69%), and the percentage of women leaders was similar to the percentage of women society members (P = .10). There was a significant difference in the percentage of women leaders between society size categories. Small societies had 32.9% (49/149) women leaders, medium had 39.4% (74/188) women leaders, and the single large society had 27.2% (66/243) (P = .03). There were also significantly more women leaders in the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) than there are women members (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that anesthesia societies may be more inclusive of women in leadership positions compared to other specialty societies. Although in anesthesiology, women remain underrepresented in academic leadership roles, there is a higher proportion of women in leadership roles in anesthesiology societies than proportion of women in the anesthesia workforce.

Cellular lipid metabolism, lipoprotein interactions, and liver X receptor (LXR) activation have been implicated in the pathophysiology and treatment of cancer, although findings vary across cancer models and by lipoprotein profiles. In this study, we investigated the effects of human-derived low-density lipoproteins (LDL), highdensity lipoproteins (HDL), and HDL-associated proteins apolipoprotein A1 (apoA1) and serum amyloid A (SAA) on markers of viability, cholesterol flux, and differentiation in K562 cells-a bone marrow-derived, stem-like erythroleukemia cell model of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). We further evaluated whether lipoprotein-mediated effects were altered by concomitant LXR activation. We observed that LDL promoted higher K562 cell viability in a dose-and time-dependent manner and increased cellular cholesterol concentrations, while LXR activation by the agonist TO901317 ablated these effects. LXR activation in the presence of HDL, apoA1 and SAA-rich HDL suppressed K562 cell viability, while robustly inducing mRNA expression of ATP-binding cassette transporter A1 (ABCA1). HDL and its associated proteins additionally suppressed mRNA expression of anti-apoptotic B-cell lymphoma-extra large (BCL-xL), and the erythroid lineage marker 5 0-aminolevulinate synthase 2 (ALAS2), while SAA-rich HDL induced mRNA expression of the megakaryocytic lineage marker integrin subunit alpha 2b (ITGA2B). Together, these findings suggest that lipoproteins and LXR may impact the viability and characteristics of CML cells.

Background Recent data show that aesthetic surgery research is lagging in comparison to reconstructive surgery: research funding and institutional disparities within aesthetic surgery are potential factors in this trend. Objectives To determine if disparities exist in aesthetic surgery research based on funding sources or practice settings. Methods Aesthetic Surgery Journal articles from 2009-2019 were reviewed. Chi-square, t-test, bivariate and multivariate regression analyses evaluated research trends. Results A total of 2,262 publications were identified, with 318 funded articles meeting inclusion criteria. Majority of studies (294, 92%) received external funding, with 281 (88%) being supported solely by external funds. Externally funded studies were financed by private industry (194, 66%), foundations/societies (53, 18%), government grants (23, 8%), or a combination of agencies (24, 8%). Majority of funded studies were at academic institutions (266, 84%), followed by private practice (46, 14%) and private industry (6, 2%). Analysis of annual publications revealed a rising percentage of academic-based research, which correlated with decreasing research from private practice (r= -0.95, r 2= 0.89, P&lt;0.001). Compared to academic institutions, private practice relied more heavily on industry funding (55% vs. 87% respectively, P=0.001), exhibiting lower rates of foundational/societal (20% vs. 2%), governmental (9% vs. 0%), combined (8% vs. 7%), and internal department funding (8% vs. 4%). Article citations and level of evidence were unaffected by funding source, agency, or practice setting. Conclusions Lack of diversity in research funding among private practice surgeons may explain the reported discrepancies that currently exist between aesthetic and reconstructive surgery research.