Background Students’ choice of medical specialties has evolved throughout year, with a growing interest in quality of life and in technological specialties. We investigated the repartition of such choices in the world and its influencing factors with a focus on the gender's influence, for helping policy-makers to deal with medical shortage and territorial to specialty disconnect. Methods A systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE and Scopus from January 2010 to January 2020. Data extraction and analysis followed JBI and PRISMA recommendations. The selected articles had to focus on medical students, detail their choice of specialty, and look for factors influencing their choice. Articles were excluded if they only assessed the attractiveness of a specialty, or evaluated a public policy. This review was registered on PROSPERO, CRD 42020169227. Findings 751 studies were screened, and fifty-four were included. Surgery and internal medicine were the most wanted specialties, both in occidental and non-occidental countries. The main factors influencing the choice of specialty were lifestyle, work-life balance and discipline interest, with variation across different countries. Gender clearly affected this choice with 63.7% of men willing radiology and 14.7% of men in obstetrics and gynecology. Interpretation Influential factors vary with specialty and are affected by the country of residence. Gender has a great impact in students’ willingness to work in specific specialties. Policymakers should adapt their appealing strategies according to the country and the medical discipline concerned. Funding The authors have no support or funding to report.

Introduction Many recent studies have investigated the hospital volume-outcome relationship in surgery. In some cases, the results have prompted the centralization of surgical activity. However, the methodologies and interpretations differ markedly from one study to another. The objective of the present scoping review was to describe the various features used to assess the volume-outcome relationship: the analyzed datasets, study population, outcome, covariates, confounders, volume modalities, and statistical methods. Methods and analysis The review was conducted according to a study protocol published in BMJ Open in 2020. Two authors (both of whom had helped to design the study protocol) screened publications independently according to the title, the abstract and then the full text. To ensure exhaustivity, all the papers included by each reviewer went through to the next step. Interpretation The 403 included studies covered 90 types of surgery, 61 types of outcome, and 72 covariates or potential confounders. 191 (47.5%) studies focussed on oncological surgery and 37.8% focussed visceral or digestive tract surgery. Overall, 86.6% of the studies found a statistically significant volume-outcome relationship, although the findings differed from one type of surgery to another. Furthermore, the types of outcome and the covariates were highly diverse. The majority of studies were performed in Western countries, and oncological and visceral surgical procedures were over-represented; this might limit the generalizability and comparability of the studies’ results.

Background: Mortality risk for children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is unknown in France and their causes of death are not well documented.Aim: To determine the standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) and causes of death in children aged 1-14 years with T1D from 1987 to 2016. Methods:The French Center for Epidemiology on Medical Causes of Death collected all death certificates in mainland France. SMRs, corrected SMRs (accounting for missing cases of deaths unrelated to diabetes), and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.Results: Of 146 deaths with the contribution of diabetes, 97 were due to T1D. Mean age at death of the subjects with T1D was 8.8 ± 4.1 years (54% males). The cause of death was diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in 58% of the cases (70% in subjects 1-4 years), hypoglycemia or dead-in-bed syndrome in 4%, related to diabetes but not described in 24%, and unrelated to diabetes in 14%. The SMRs showed a significant decrease across the years, except for the 1-4 age group. In the last decade (2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016), the crude and corrected SMRs were significantly different from 1 in the 1-4 age group (5.4 [2.3; 10.7] and 6.1 [2.8; 11.5]), no longer significant in the 5-9 age group (1.7 [0.6; 4.0] and 2.1 [0.8; 4.5]) and borderline significant in the 10-14 age group (1.7 [0.8; 3.2] and 2.3 [1.2; 4.0]).Conclusions: Children with T1D aged 1-4 years still had a high mortality rate. Their needs for early recognition and safe management of diabetes are not being met.

No abstract

IntroductionEven if a positive volume-outcome correlation in surgery is mostly admitted in many surgical fields, the various ways to assess this relationship make it difficult for researchers and policymakers to use it. Our aim is therefore to provide an overview of the way hospital volume-outcome relationship was assessed. Through this overview, our goal is to identify potential gaps in the assessment of this relationship, to help researchers who want to pursue work in this field and, ultimately, to help policy makers interpret such analyses.Methods and analysisThis review will be conducted using the six stages of the scoping review method: identifying the research question, searching for relevant studies, selecting studies, data extraction, collating, summarising and reporting the results and concluding. This review will address all the key questions used to assess the volume-outcome relationship in surgery.Primary research papers investigating the hospital volume-outcome relationship from 2009 will be included. Studies only looking at surgeons’ volume-outcome relationship or studies were the volume variable is not individualisable will be excluded.Both MEDLINE and Scopus will be searched along with grey literature. Two researchers will perform all the stages of the review: screen the titles and abstracts, review the full text of selected articles to determine final inclusions and extract the data. The results will be summarised quantitatively using numerical counts.Ethical considerations and disseminationReviews of published articles are considered secondary analysis and do not need ethical approval. The findings will be disseminated through multiple channels like conferences and peer-reviewed journals.