Reading habits of physical medicine and rehabilitation resident physicians

"Landmark" Articles in Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery: Do We Read What We Cite?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to describe the provision of a "landmark" article reading list to trainees by their Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) fellowship programs.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, a web-based survey was sent to program coordinators of accredited FPMRS programs. Available reading lists were collected, and a master list compiled. Nonparametric tests were used to investigate the association between the number of faculty members and presence of a reading list.

RESULTS

We received a response from 46 (92%) of the 50 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education programs contacted. Half the programs (23/46, 50%) reported that they do not offer a recommended reading list, 5 programs were unsure and over more than 60% with a list (12/18, 67%) shared their list with the investigators. Programs had between 2 and 14 core faculty members with a median (interquartile range) of 4 (3-6). Programs with a reading list had significantly fewer faculty members (3.5, 3-5 vs 5, 3-6, P = 0.03). There were 323 unique articles across the 12 lists, with a median of 25 articles per list. Thirty-four articles were on 4 or more lists; 9 of these (9/34, 26%) have previously been identified as citation classics.

CONCLUSIONS

At least 50% of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited programs do not provide their fellows with a recommended reading list, and fewer core faculty members are associated with the presence of such a list. Although some commonalities are found between reading lists, a universal reading list of "landmark" articles could improve the consistency of FPMRS fellowship education.

The changing landscape of off-label prescription drug promotion

Purpose

Off-label drug prescribing by healthcare providers is a growing practice. Yet, the US Food and Drug Administration bans the marketing of drugs for off-label uses. In recent years, legal challenges by the pharmaceutical industry have chipped away government restrictions on off-label drug promotion. Although the changing legal landscape has been discussed, this paper aims to examine how key stakeholders and policy-makers might interact to provide a more transparent marketing environment for off-label drug discussions in the patient–provider relationship.

Design/methodology/approach

Drawing on a variety of sources, the authors assess the current marketing landscape of off-label drugs and some of the issues that challenge the healthcare provider–patient relationship. The authors then examine opportunities to improve the off-label promotion environment and the relevant decision-making theories that key stakeholders need to consider when formulating marketing efforts and policies.

Findings

The authors suggest that fewer restrictions on truthful, non-misleading off-label drug promotion provide an opportunity to improve drug knowledge and, importantly, healthcare provider and consumer decision-making. Key stakeholders should consider, among other solutions, criteria for defining truthful information on off-label drugs, alternative methods of approval of off-label uses and ubiquitous icons to identify off-label prescribing to all stakeholders.

Originality/value

Rather than rehash the legal landscape of off-label drug promotion, this paper focuses on how the healthcare provider–patient relationship is impacted and how stakeholders can improve information flow in this changing environment.

Resident physicians' clinical training and error rate: the roles of autonomy, consultation, and familiarity with the literature

Resident physicians' clinical training poses unique challenges for the delivery of safe patient care. Residents face special risks of involvement in medical errors since they have tremendous responsibility for patient care, yet they are novice practitioners in the process of learning and mastering their profession. The present study explores the relationships between residents' error rates and three clinical training methods (1) progressive independence or level of autonomy, (2) consulting the physician on call, and (3) familiarity with up-to-date medical literature, and whether these relationships vary among the specialties of surgery and internal medicine and between novice and experienced residents. 142 Residents in 22 medical departments from two hospitals participated in the study. Results of hierarchical linear model analysis indicated that lower levels of autonomy, higher levels of consultation with the physician on call, and higher levels of familiarity with up-to-date medical literature were associated with lower levels of resident's error rates. The associations varied between internal and surgery specializations and novice and experienced residents. In conclusion, the study results suggested that the implicit curriculum that residents should be afforded autonomy and progressive independence with nominal supervision in accordance with their relevant skills and experience must be applied cautiously depending on specialization and experience. In addition, it is necessary to create a supportive and judgment free climate within the department that may reduce a resident's hesitation to consult the attending physician.

The scatter of research: cross sectional comparison of randomised trials and systematic reviews across specialties

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the degree of scatter of reports of randomised trials and systematic reviews, and how the scatter differs among medical specialties and subspecialties.

DESIGN

Cross sectional analysis.

DATA SOURCE

PubMed for all disease relevant randomised trials and systematic reviews published in 2009.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised trials and systematic reviews of the nine diseases or disorders with the highest burden of disease, and the broader category of disease to which each belonged.

RESULTS

The scatter across journals varied considerably among specialties and subspecialties: otolaryngology had the least scatter (363 trials across 167 journals) and neurology the most (2770 trials across 896 journals). In only three subspecialties (lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hearing loss) were 10 or fewer journals needed to locate 50% of trials. The scatter was less for systematic reviews: hearing loss had the least scatter (10 reviews across nine journals) and cancer the most (670 reviews across 279 journals). For some specialties and subspecialties the papers were concentrated in specialty journals; whereas for others, few of the top 10 journals were a specialty journal for that area. Generally, little overlap occurred between the top 10 journals publishing trials and those publishing systematic reviews. The number of journals required to find all trials or reviews was highly correlated (r = 0.97) with the number of papers for each specialty/subspecialty.

CONCLUSIONS

Publication rates of speciality relevant trials vary widely, from one to seven trials per day, and are scattered across hundreds of general and specialty journals. Although systematic reviews reduce the extent of scatter, they are still widely scattered and mostly in different journals to those of randomised trials. Personal subscriptions to journals, which are insufficient for keeping up to date with knowledge, need to be supplemented by other methods such as journal scanning services or systems that cover sufficient journals and filter articles for quality and relevance. Few current systems seem adequate.

Tackling the growth of the obesity literature: obesity evidence spreads across many journals

OBJECTIVE

This study identified the journals with the highest yield of clinical obesity research articles and surveyed the scatter of such studies across journals. The study exemplifies an approach to establish a journal collection that is likely to contain most new knowledge about a field.

DESIGN AND METHODS

All original studies that were cited in 40 systematic reviews about obesity topics ('included studies') were compiled and journal titles in which they were published were extracted. The journals were ranked by the number of included studies. The highest-yielding journals for clinical obesity and the scatter across journal titles were determined. A subset of these journals was created in MEDLINE (PubMed) to test search recall and precision for high-quality studies of obesity treatment (that is, articles that pass predetermined methodology criteria, including random allocation of participants to comparison groups, assessment of clinical outcomes, and at least 80% follow-up).

RESULTS

Articles in 252 journals were cited in the systematic reviews. The three highest-yielding journals specialized in obesity, but they published only 19.2% of the research, leaving 80.8% scattered across 249 non-obesity journals. The MEDLINE journal subset comprised 241 journals (11 journals were not indexed in MEDLINE) and included 82% of the clinical obesity research articles retrieved by a search for high-quality treatment studies ('recall' of 82%). Of the articles retrieved, 11% were about clinical obesity care ('precision' of 11%), compared with precision of 6% for obesity treatment studies in the full MEDLINE database.

CONCLUSION

Obesity journals captured only a small proportion of the literature on clinical obesity care. Those wishing to keep up in this field will need to develop more inclusive strategies than reading these specialty journals. A journal subset based on these findings may be useful when searching large electronic databases to increase search precision.

An update on Uniform Resource Locator (URL) decay in MEDLINE abstracts and measures for its mitigation

BACKGROUND

For years, Uniform Resource Locator (URL) decay or "link rot" has been a growing concern in the field of biomedical sciences. This paper addresses this issue by examining the status of the URLs published in MEDLINE abstracts, establishing current availability and estimating URL decay in these records from 1994 to 2006. We also reviewed the information provided by the URL to determine if the context that the author cited in writing the paper is the same information presently available in the URL. Lastly, with all the documented recommended methods to preserve URL links, we determined which among them have gained acceptance among authors and publishers.

METHODS

MEDLINE records from 1994 to 2006 from the National Library of Medicine in Extensible Mark-up Language (XML) format were processed yielding 10,208 URL addresses. These were accessed once daily at random times for 30 days. Titles and abstracts were also searched for the presence of archival tools such as WebCite, Persistent URL (PURL) and Digital Object Identifier (DOI).

RESULTS

Results showed that the average URL length ranged from 13 to 425 characters with a mean length of 35 characters [Standard Deviation (SD) = 13.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) 13.25 to 13.77]. The most common top-level domains were ".org" and ".edu", each with 34%. About 81% of the URL pool was available 90% to 100% of the time, but only 78% of these contained the actual information mentioned in the MEDLINE record. "Dead" URLs constituted 16% of the total. Finally, a survey of archival tool usage showed that since its introduction in 1998, only 519 of all abstracts reviewed had incorporated DOI addresses in their MEDLINE abstracts.

CONCLUSION

URL persistence parallels previous studies which showed approximately 81% general availability during the 1-month study period. As peer-reviewed literature remains to be the main source of information in biomedicine, we need to ensure the accuracy and preservation of these links.

Lost in publication: Half of all renal practice evidence is published in non-renal journals

Physicians often scan a select number of journals to keep up to date with practice evidence for patients with kidney conditions. This raises the question of where relevant studies are published. We performed a bibliometric analysis using 195 renal systematic reviews. Each review used a comprehensive method to identify all primary studies for a focused clinical question relevant to patient care. We compiled all the primary studies included in these reviews, and considered where each study was published. Of the 2779 studies, 1351 (49%) were published in the top 20 journals. Predictably, this list included Transplantation Proceedings (5.9% of studies), Kidney International (5.3%), American Journal of Kidney Diseases (4.7%), Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation (4.3%), Transplantation (4.2%), and Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (2.4%). Ten non-renal journals were also on this list, including New England Journal of Medicine (2.4%), Lancet (2.3%), and Diabetes Care (2.2%). The remaining 1428 (51%) studies were published across other 446 journals. When the disciplines of all journals were considered, 59 were classified as renal or transplant journals (42% of articles). Other specialties included general and internal medicine (16%), endocrinology (diabetes) and metabolism (6.5%), surgery (6.2%), cardiovascular diseases (6.1%), pediatrics (4.3%), and radiology (3.3%). About half of all renal practice evidence is published in non-renal journals. Browsing the top journals is important. However, relevant studies are also scattered across a large range of journals that may not be routinely scanned by busy physicians, and keeping up with this literature requires other continuing education strategies.