Citations

Abstract Rehabilitation after musculoskeletal trauma is globally acknowledged as essential for restoring function and improving quality of life; however, significant variation exists in rehabilitation frameworks and services worldwide. Although certain principles—such as early intervention, structured care pathways, and multidisciplinary approaches—are universally recognized as important determinants of outcomes in trauma patients, their implementation and effectiveness vary considerably due to differences in health care infrastructure, economic resources, policy frameworks, and cultural contexts. Drawing on comparative analyses of rehabilitation frameworks across regions, including North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and Africa, this paper identifies structural variations, systemic challenges, and innovations that can inform global rehabilitation efforts. Strategic international collaboration focusing on shared learning, standardized protocols, technology integration, and targeted investments is key to creating equitable and sustainable rehabilitation models, especially in resource-limited settings and aging populations.

Abstract Molecular profiling reveals that up to 40% of advanced biliary tract cancers (BTCs) harbor actionable genomic alterations amenable to matched targeted therapies. However, conventional trial designs typically evaluate these agents in pretreated populations, resulting in approvals for later-line use. Notably, 25–44% of patients with advanced BTC may become ineligible for treatment after first-line therapy due to disease progression or functional decline, thus the real-world survival outcomes with matched therapies remains poorly characterized. This international collaborative study includes data from Mayo Clinic, Duke Cancer Institute, and National Cancer Center East (Japan), as well as a combined dataset from the SCRUM-Japan GOZILA, MONSTAR-SCREEN-1, and MONSTAR-SCREEN-2 projects. We assessed overall survival (OS) of patients based on the presence of actionable alterations and the receipt of matched therapy. To adjust for confounding, we applied propensity score weighting with inverse probability of treatment and multivariate Cox regression modeling, controlling for age, sex, tumor location, prior resection, and mutational subgroup. Among 1,049 patients that were analyzed, 358 (34.1%) harbored actionable alterations, with 160 (44.7%) receiving matched targeted therapy. The matched group (patients with actionable tumors who received a matched therapy) were significantly associated with longer median OS (23.3 months; 95% CI: 19.5–30.4) compared to the unmatched group (14.7 months; 95% CI: 12.8–17.9) and those with non-actionable tumors (17.1 months; 95% CI: 15.5–18.7; HR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.46–0.71; p < 0.0001). The unmatched group also was associated with the lowest three-year OS rate (13% vs. 35% in matched and 19% in actionable groups, respectively; p<0.0001). On multivariable analysis with patients who received ≥2 lines of therapy, receipt of matched therapy remained an independent predictor of improved OS (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.43–0.90). These findings support the early integration of targeted therapies in BTC management and underscore the need to overcome systemic barriers to treatment access.

OBJECTIVE Neurosurgeon scientists play a unique role in advancing neuroscience research. While previous publications have explored trends in federal and foundation funding among neurosurgeons, funding is often dominated by neurosurgical oncologists and functional neurosurgeons. Less is known about the research efforts of pediatric neurosurgeons. The aim of this study was to survey the members of the American Society of Pediatric Neurosurgeons (ASPN) to provide an overview of past research experience, current involvement, funding, and research priorities among pediatric neurosurgeons, and to gather insights that could shape future efforts to advance pediatric neurosurgical research. METHODS A survey was developed using the REDCap platform and distributed to all ASPN members via email. Survey questions used branching logic and were organized into 5 sections: 1) demographics, 2) research experience during training, 3) research experience as an attending physician, 4) research priorities, and 5) multicenter consortiums. RESULTS One hundred thirty-nine respondents completed more than half of the survey, for an overall response rate of 52.1%. Most respondents (96.4%) participated in research during their training, but only 38.1% had received a grant during training. In contrast, 83.9% of respondents were actively engaged in research as an attending physician, and 48.7% reported active funding (60.7% federal, 41.8% from foundations, and 42.9% internal). Furthermore, 74.8% of respondents reported being a member of a multicenter research consortium, and 82.4% agreed that multicenter research is important. Seventy percent of respondents agreed that the ASPN should facilitate multicenter consortium-based pediatric neurosurgical research, offering free-text responses with the following suggestions: 1) set aside time at the annual meeting to discuss multicenter research (22.9%); 2) encourage collaboration and facilitate networking (42.9%); 3) provide centralized core services such as a data coordinator and biostatistician (12.9%); and 4) provide training, education, and mentoring (7.1%). CONCLUSIONS The survey provided a cross-sectional analysis of the pediatric neurosurgical research landscape, highlighting the current state of research experience, funding, and the perspectives of pediatric neurosurgeons regarding research priorities. Despite the challenges, there is clear recognition of the importance of multicenter research collaboration. These findings reinforce the ongoing necessity of organized initiatives to support pediatric neurosurgical research and offer actionable insights into how organized pediatric neurosurgery can contribute to this critical endeavor.

Goals: This study aimed to assess perspectives and practices among expert gastroenterologists regarding the screening, diagnosis, and management of BE. Background: Significant variability in the management of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) persists among physicians despite the development and dissemination of several clinical practice guidelines. Study: An online survey was conducted with 38 expert gastroenterologists specializing in BE management. The 38-question survey evaluated demographics, medical management, and attitudes toward endoscopic treatment, with responses analyzed for trends and variations. Results: Of the 38 experts, 34 (89%) responded. Respondents were primarily male (85%), with 82% affiliated with academic hospitals and 53% clinically focused on BE. Half discussed BE risks during initial consultations for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Most (61.8%) agreed BE should be considered in women with chronic GERD, and 88.2% regularly used narrow-band imaging (NBI). However, 44% were neutral or disagreed with diagnosing BE based solely on community gastroenterologist biopsies, and acceptance of Wide-Area Transepithelial Sampling with 3D Analysis (WATS-3D) for Barrett’s esophagus diagnosis and surveillance was limited. Fifty-three percent recommended ablation for nondysplastic BE. Fifty-two percent recommended indefinite daily PPI therapy after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CEIM), regardless of symptoms. When encountering cardia intestinal metaplasia after endoscopic eradication, 38% recommended ablation, while 47% continued surveillance. Conclusion: This study highlights substantial variations in the management of BE among expert gastroenterologists, despite the existence of updated guidelines. Identifying these discrepancies is crucial for optimizing care. Further efforts are needed to standardize practices and enhance the implementation of evidence-based guidelines in clinical settings.

Abstract Clinical and translational research is important for health care and the growth of medical specialties. Physical medicine and rehabilitation offers many opportunities for research, but research growth in physical medicine and rehabilitation is lacking, and research resources and productivity vary across academic physical medicine and rehabilitation departments across North America. The Physiatric Research Consulting Program was developed by the Association of Academic Physiatrists to provide customized recommendations to enhance research capacity and productivity in physical medicine and rehabilitation departments. This report outlines the three components of the Physiatric Research Consulting Program, including a previsit needs assessment, an in-person visit, and a postvisit follow-up final report. The report also provides a qualitative assessment of the impact of the Physiatric Research Consulting Program, with general themes of feedback, site visit evaluations, and final report evaluations. The Physiatric Research Consulting Program was found to be valuable in identifying gaps and needs for physical medicine and rehabilitation departments, providing outside perspectives, and energizing faculty toward research growth in their departments.