Disproportionally low funding for trauma research by the National Institutes of Health: A call for a National Institute of Trauma

Trauma Research Funding: An Emergency in Emergency Care

INTRODUCTION

Trauma remains a significantly underfunded area of medical research despite its status as a leading cause of death and substantial economic burden in the United States. This study explores the disparity in trauma research funding, focusing on Oklahoma compared to neighboring and populous states.

METHODS

Using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS™) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)'s RePORT databases, we analyzed age-adjusted years of potential life lost (YPLL) due to trauma and corresponding NIH funding across different states and nationally. Statistical analyses included bivariate comparisons and standardization of funding data per population and YPLL.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2020, NIH allocated approximately $124 billion nationally, with only 5% dedicated to trauma, amounting to $1,772.32 per age-adjusted YPLL. Oklahoma and Kansas exhibited the lowest NIH funding per YPLL compared to New York and California. Funding for the National Injury Prevention and Control, a subdivision of the CDC, has shown significant increases, ranking third in 2022.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the urgent need for enhanced trauma research funding to address its disproportionate impact on mortality and healthcare costs. Strategic allocation of resources is essential to advance trauma care and align research priorities with public health needs.

Metal-organic frameworks: synthesis, properties, wound dressing, challenges and scopes in advanced wound dressing

Wound healing is a critical but complex biological process of skin tissue repair and regeneration resulting from various systems working together at the cellular and molecular levels. Quick wound healing and the problems associated with traditional wound repair techniques are being overcome with multifunctional materials. Over time, this research area has drawn significant attention. Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), owning to their peculiar physicochemical characteristics, are now considered a promising class of well-suited porous materials for wound healing in addition to their other biological applications. This detailed literature review provides an overview of the latest developments in MOFs for wound healing applications. We have discussed the synthesis, essential biomedical properties, wound-healing mechanism, MOF-based dressing materials, and their wound-healing applications. The possible major challenges and limitations of MOFs have been discussed, along with conclusions and future perspectives. This overview of the literature review addresses MOFs-based wound healing from several angles and covers the most current developments in the subject. The readers may discover how the MOFs advanced this discipline by producing more inventive, useful, and successful dressings. It influences the development of future generations of biomaterials for the healing and regeneration of skin wounds.

The undisclosed disclosures: The dollar-outcome relationship in resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta

BACKGROUND

Despite its rapid evolution, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) remains a controversial intervention that continues to generate active research. Proper conflict of interest (COI) disclosure helps to ensure that research is conducted objectively, without bias. We aimed to identify the accuracy of COI disclosures in REBOA research.

METHODS

Literature search was performed using the keyword "REBOA" on PubMed. Studies on REBOA with at least one American author published between 2017 and 2022 were identified. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database was used to extract information regarding payments to the authors from the industry. This was compared with the COI section reported in the manuscripts. Conflict of interest disclosure was defined as inaccurate if the authors failed to disclose any amount of money received from the industry. Descriptive statistics were performed.

RESULTS

We reviewed a total of 524 articles, of which 288 articles met the inclusion criteria. At least one author received payments in 57% (165) of the articles. Overall, 59 authors had a history of payment from the industry. Conflict of interest disclosure was inaccurate in 88% (145) of the articles where the authors received payment.

CONCLUSION

Conflict of interest reports are highly inaccurate in REBOA studies. There needs to be standardization of reporting of conflicts of interest to avoid potential bias.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Research priorities in venous thromboembolism after trauma: Secondary analysis of the National Trauma Research Action Plan

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality during recovery from injury and can result in significant health care costs. Despite advances in the past several decades in our approach to VTE prophylaxis after injury, opportunities exist to improve the delivery and implementation of optimal VTE prophylaxis. Here, we aim to identify consensus research questions related to VTE across all National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) Delphi expert panels to further guide the research agenda aimed at preventing VTE after injury.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of consensus-based research priorities that were collected using a Delphi methodology by 11 unique NTRAP panels that were charged with unique topic areas across the spectrum of injury care. The database of questions was queried for the keywords "VTE," "venous thromboembo," and "DVT" and then grouped into relevant topic areas.

RESULTS

There were 86 VTE-related research questions identified across 9 NTRAP panels. Eighty-five questions reached consensus with 24 rated high priority; 60, medium priority; and 1, low priority. Questions related to the timing of VTE prophylaxis (n = 17) were most common, followed by questions related to risk factors for the development of VTE (n = 16), the effects of tranexamic acid on VTE (n = 11), the approach to dosing of pharmacologic prophylaxis (n = 8), and the pharmacologic prophylactic medication choice for optimal VTE prophylaxis (n = 6).

CONCLUSION

National Trauma Research Action Plan panelists identified 85 consensus-based research questions that should drive dedicated extramural research funding opportunities to support quality studies aimed at optimizing VTE prophylaxis after injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

American Trauma Care: A System of Systems

OBJECTIVE

The benefits of organized trauma systems have been well-documented during 50 years of trauma system development in the United States. Unfortunately, despite this evidence, trauma system development has occurred only sporadically in the 50 states.

METHODS

The relevant literature related to trauma system design and development was reviewed based on relevance to the study. Information from these sources was summarized into a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis.

RESULTS

Strengths discovered were leadership brought forth by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma and meaningful change generated from The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report addressing the fractionation of the nation's trauma systems, whereas weaknesses included patient outcome disparities due to the lack of a national governing authority, undertriage, underresourced rural trauma, and underfunded trauma research. Opportunities included the creation of level IV trauma centers; telemedicine; the development of rural trauma management courses; air medical transport to bring high-intensity care to the patient, particularly in rural areas; trauma research; and trauma prevention through outreach and educational programs. The following threats were determined: mass casualty incidents, motor vehicle collisions because of the high rate of motor vehicle collision deaths in the United States relative to other developed countries, and underfunded trauma systems.

CONCLUSION

Much work remains to be done in the development of an American trauma system. Recommendations include implementation of trauma care governance at the federal level; national oversight and support of emergency medical services systems, particularly in rural areas with strict reporting processes for emergency medical services programs; national organization of our mass casualty response; increased federal and state funding allocated to trauma centers; a consistent model for trauma system development; and trauma research.

Firearm injury survival is only the beginning: The impact of socioeconomic factors on unplanned readmission after injury

BACKGROUND

Firearm trauma remain a national crisis disproportionally impacting minority populations in the United States. Risk factors leading to unplanned readmission after firearm injury remain unclear. We hypothesized that socioeconomic factors have a major impact on unplanned readmission following assault-related firearm injury.

METHODS

The 2016-2019 Nationwide Readmission Database of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project was used to identify hospital admissions in those aged >14 years with assault-related firearm injury. Multivariable analysis assessed factors associated with unplanned 90-day readmission.

RESULTS

Over 4 years, 20,666 assault-related firearm injury admissions were identified that resulted in 2,033 injuries with subsequent 90-day unplanned readmission. Those with readmissions tended to be older (31.9 vs 30.3 years), had a drug or alcohol diagnosis at primary hospitalization (27.1% vs 24.1%), and had longer hospital stays at primary hospitalization (15.5 vs 8.1 days) [all P<0.05]. The mortality rate in the primary hospitalization was 4.5%. Primary readmission diagnoses included: complications (29.6%), infection (14.5%), mental health (4.4%), trauma (15.6%), and chronic disease (30.6%). Over half of the patients readmitted with a trauma diagnosis were coded as new trauma encounters. 10.3% of readmission diagnoses included an additional 'initial' firearm injury diagnosis. Independent predictors of 90-day unplanned readmission were public insurance (aOR 1.21, P = 0.008), lowest income quartile (aOR 1.23, P = 0.048), living in a larger urban region (aOR 1.49, P = 0.01), discharge requiring additional care (aOR 1.61, P < 0.001), and discharge against medical advice (aOR 2.39, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Here we present socioeconomic risk factors for unplanned readmission after assault-related firearm injury. Better understanding of this population can lead to improved outcomes, decreased readmissions, and decreased financial burden on hospitals and patients. Hospital-based violence intervention programs may use this to target mitigating intervention programs in this population.

Use of Bayesian Statistics to Reanalyze Data From the Pragmatic Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios Trial

IMPORTANCE

Frequentist statistical approaches are the most common strategies for clinical trial design; however, bayesian trial design may provide a more optimal study technique for trauma-related studies.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the outcomes of bayesian statistical approaches using data from the Pragmatic Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) Trial.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This quality improvement study performed a post hoc bayesian analysis of the PROPPR Trial using multiple hierarchical models to assess the association of resuscitation strategy with mortality. The PROPPR Trial took place at 12 US level I trauma centers from August 2012 to December 2013. A total of 680 severely injured trauma patients who were anticipated to require large volume transfusions were included in the study. Data analysis for this quality improvement study was conducted from December 2021 and June 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

In the PROPPR Trial, patients were randomized to receive a balanced transfusion (equal portions of plasma, platelets, and red blood cells [1:1:1]) vs a red blood cell-heavy strategy (1:1:2) during their initial resuscitation.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes from the PROPPR trial included 24-hour and 30-day all-cause mortality using frequentist statistical methods. Bayesian methods were used to define the posterior probabilities associated with the resuscitation strategies at each of the original primary end points.

RESULTS

Overall, 680 patients (546 [80.3%] male; median [IQR] age, 34 [24-51] years, 330 [48.5%] with penetrating injury; median [IQR] Injury Severity Score, 26 [17-41]; 591 [87.0%] with severe hemorrhage) were included in the original PROPPR Trial. Between the groups, no significant differences in mortality were originally detected at 24 hours (12.7% vs 17.0%; adjusted risk ratio [RR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.52-1.08]; P = .12) or 30 days (22.4% vs 26.1%; adjusted RR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.65-1.12]; P = .26). Using bayesian approaches, a 1:1:1 resuscitation was found to have a 93% (Bayes factor, 13.7; RR, 0.75 [95% credible interval, 0.45-1.11]) and 87% (Bayes factor, 6.56; RR, 0.82 [95% credible interval, 0.57-1.16]) probability of being superior to a 1:1:2 resuscitation with regards to 24-hour and 30-day mortality, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this quality improvement study, a post hoc bayesian analysis of the PROPPR Trial found evidence in support of mortality reduction with a balanced resuscitation strategy for patients in hemorrhagic shock. Bayesian statistical methods offer probability-based results capable of direct comparison between various interventions and should be considered for future studies assessing trauma-related outcomes.

U.S. Leading Causes of Death and Years of Potential Life Lost, 1981-2019: Implications for Surgical Research

INTRODUCTION

Examining burden of diseases could shed light on priorities of public health interventions and research funding. This study examined trends of the U.S. top leading causes of death from 1981 to 2019 using the total number of deaths, age-adjusted death rate, and years of potential life lost (YPLLs).

METHODS

Data were from the Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System. This study gathered total number of deaths, age-adjusted death rates per 100,000 people, and YPLLs under 70 y of age (YPLL-70) from 1981 to 2019 for the top 10 leading causes of death and human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) for each year. The 39 y from 1981 to 2019 were evenly divided into three study periods: 1981-1993, 1994-2006, and 2007-2019. The percent change of YPLL-70 over three time periods for the top ten leading causes of death and AIDS was calculated. Trends of age-adjusted death rates and YPLL-70 of the top five leading causes of death based on the 2018-2019 death data were also reported by graphing them against time from 1981 to 2019 to highlight major mortality causes. Age-adjusted death rates for the top five leading causes of deaths and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) annual funding level in 2019 were graphed together to illustrate funding discrepancy in injury research and prevention.

RESULTS

The total number of deaths caused by malignant neoplasms in 2019 was 244,994, followed by 183,442 deaths of heart diseases, 121,476 deaths of unintentional injuries, and 41,051 suicide deaths. Despite an initial -22.20% drop of YPPL-70 during 1981-1993, unintentional injuries experienced significant increases of 19.38% and 18.59% of YPLL-70 in 1994-2006 and 2007-2019, respectively. The age-adjusted death rate for unintentional injuries was 1182 per 100,000 people in 2019, and the NIH funding in the same year was $897 million. In comparison, the age-adjusted death rate for cancer, heart disease, and human immunodeficiency virus/AIDS was 786, 649, and 30 per 100,000 people while the NIH funding was $2,560, $2,394, and $3037 million, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Unintentional injuries, suicide, and homicide were consistently among the top leading causes of death and YPLL-70, so they should be prioritized in public health planning, research, and federal funding allocation. Injury and trauma research is severely underfunded by the U.S. premier funding agency.

Quality care is equitable care: a call to action to link quality to achieving health equity within acute care surgery

Health equity is defined as the sixth domain of healthcare quality. Understanding health disparities in acute care surgery (defined as trauma surgery, emergency general surgery and surgical critical care) is key to identifying targets that will improve outcomes and ensure delivery of high-quality care within healthcare organizations. Implementing a health equity framework within institutions such that local acute care surgeons can ensure equity is a component of quality is imperative. Recognizing this need, the AAST (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma) Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee convened an expert panel entitled 'Quality Care is Equitable Care' at the 81st annual meeting in September 2022 (Chicago, Illinois). Recommendations for introducing health equity metrics within health systems include: (1) capturing patient outcome data including patient experience data by race, ethnicity, language, sexual orientation, and gender identity; (2) ensuring cultural competency (eg, availability of language services; identifying sources of bias or inequities); (3) prioritizing health literacy; and (4) measuring disease-specific disparities such that targeted interventions are developed and implemented. A stepwise approach is outlined to include health equity as an organizational quality indicator.

Federal Funding and Citation Metrics of US Biomedical Researchers, 1996 to 2022

IMPORTANCE

Both citation and funding metrics converge in shaping current perceptions of academic success.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate what proportion of the most-cited US-based scientists are funded by biomedical federal agencies and whether funded scientists are more cited than nonfunded ones.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This survey study used linkage of a Scopus-based database on top-cited US researchers (according to a composite citation metric) and the National Institutes of Health RePORTER database of federal funding (33 biomedical federal agencies). Matching was based on name and institution. US-based top-cited scientists who were allocated to any of 69 scientific subfields highly related to biomedicine were considered in the main analysis. Data were downloaded on June 11, 2022.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Proportion of US-based top-cited biomedical scientists who had any (1996-2022), recent (2015-2022), and current (2021-2022) funding. Comparisons of funded and nonfunded scientists assessed total citations and a composite citation index.

RESULTS

There were 204 603 records in RePORTER (1996-2022) and 75 316 US-based top-cited scientists in the career-long citation database; 40 887 scientists were included in the main analysis. The proportion of US-based top-cited biomedical scientists (according to career-long citation impact) who had received any federal funding from biomedical research agencies was 62.7% (25 650 of 40 887) for any funding (1996-2022), 23.1% (9427 of 40 887) for recent funding (2015-2022), and 14.1% (5778 of 40 887) for current funding (2021-2022). Respective proportions were 64.8%, 31.4%, and 20.9%, for top-cited scientists according to recent single-year citation impact. There was large variability across scientific subfields (eg, current funding: 31% of career-long impact top-cited scientists in geriatrics, 30% in bioinformatics and 29% in developmental biology, but 0% in legal and forensic medicine, general psychology and cognitive sciences, and gender studies). Funded top-cited researchers were overall more cited than nonfunded top-cited scientists (median [IQR], 9594 [5650-1703] vs 5352 [3057-9890] citations; P < .001) and substantial difference remained after adjusting for subfield and years since first publication. Differences were more prominent in some specific biomedical subfields.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this survey study, biomedical federal funding had offered support to approximately two-thirds of the top-cited biomedical scientists at some point during the last quarter century, but only a small minority of top-cited scientists had current federal biomedical funding. The large unevenness across subfields needs to be addressed with ways that improve equity, efficiency, excellence, and translational potential.

Growing the next generation of trauma surgeon-scientists: Reflections on 20 years of research investment

INTRODUCTION

The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma mission includes fostering research and providing career development opportunities. Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma has awarded for 20 years a research scholarship to a promising young investigator. The research mentorship efforts were expanded 5 years ago with the INVEST-C Hack-a-thon. INVEST-C provides an intensive, short-term engagement to propel junior faculty toward establishing research independence. This study investigates the impact of these programs on academic productivity.

METHODS

Pubmed records, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Reporter data, and SCOPUS h-index were acquired for all scholarship (SCH) awardees from 2002 to 2021 (n = 20) and all INVEST-C (INV) participants (2017-2020, n = 19). Current type of practice, total number of funding awards, and timing of first award were ascertained. INVEST-C participants were also surveyed on an annual basis to track their progress. Medians (interquartile range [IQR]) are reported and compared (analysis of variance).

RESULTS

Median publications (PUBs) of SCH awardees were 56 (IQR, 33-88), h-index was 16 (IQR, 12-21), and 25% of awardees have ≥1 NIH grant since their SCH. Among the last 10 awardees with a minimum of 2 years from SCH, 40% have received an NIH award compared with a mean NIH funding rate of 18.5% over the same period. For those remaining in academics (90% SCH), PUBs were higher for those >5 years (66 [IQR, 51-115]) versus <5 years from their SCH (33 [22-59]; p = 0.05), but there was no difference in h-index (16 [IQR, 14-25] vs. 15 [9-19], p = NS). Comparing the most recent 5 years of SCH to INV group, there was no difference in academic productivity as measured by total PUBs (SCH, 33 [IQR, 22-59] vs. INV, 34 [IQR, 18-44]; p = 0.7) or h-index (INV, 9 [IQR, 5-14]; p = 0.1). However, no attendee held research funding before INV, but 31.6% (6 of 19 attendees) have subsequently acquired ≥1 funding award (11 non-NIH, 1 NIH) in the short interval since participation.

CONCLUSION

Investments in research activities have translated to significant extramural funding. Those in the last 5 years have been particularly fruitful with INV participants already achieving equal median academic productivity to SCH recipients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level III.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the acute resuscitation, initial patient evaluation, imaging, and management research gap Delphi survey

BACKGROUND

Injury is the leading cause of death in patients aged 1 to 45 years and contributes to a significant public health burden for individuals of all ages. To achieve zero preventable deaths and disability after injury, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine called for the development of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to improve outcomes for military and civilian trauma patients. Because rapid resuscitation and prompt identification and treatment of injuries are critical in achieving optimal outcomes, a panel of experts was convened to generate high-priority research questions in the areas of acute resuscitation, initial evaluation, imaging, and definitive management on injury.

METHODS

Forty-three subject matter experts in trauma care and injury research were recruited to perform a gap analysis of current literature and prioritize unanswered research questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. Four Delphi rounds were conducted to generate research questions and prioritize them using a 9-point Likert scale. Research questions were stratified as low, medium, or high priority, with consensus defined as ≥60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category. Research questions were coded using a taxonomy of 118 research concepts that were standard across all National Trauma Research Action Plan panels.

RESULTS

There were 1,422 questions generated, of which 992 (69.8%) reached consensus. Of the questions reaching consensus, 327 (33.0%) were given high priority, 621 (62.6%) medium priority, and 44 (4.4%) low priority. Pharmaceutical intervention and fluid/blood product resuscitation were most frequently scored as high-priority intervention concepts. Research questions related to traumatic brain injury, vascular injury, pelvic fracture, and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis were highly prioritized.

CONCLUSION

This research gap analysis identified more than 300 high-priority research questions within the broad category of Acute Resuscitation, Initial Evaluation, Imaging, and Definitive Management. Research funding should be prioritized to address these high-priority topics in the future.

Improvement in trauma care for road traffic injuries: an assessment of the effect on mortality in low-income and middle-income countries

Over 90% of the annual 1·35 million worldwide deaths due to road traffic injuries (RTIs) occur in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). For this Series paper, our aim was two-fold. Firstly, to review evidence on effective interventions for victims of RTIs; and secondly, to estimate the potential number of lives saved by effective trauma care systems and clinical interventions in LMICs. We reviewed all the literature on trauma-related health systems and clinical interventions published during the past 20 years using MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. We included studies in which mortality was the primary outcome and excluded studies in which trauma other than RTIs was the predominant injury. We used data from the Global Status Report on Road Safety 2018 and a Monte Carlo simulation technique to estimate the potential annual attributable number of lives saved in LMICs. Of the 1921 studies identified for our review of the literature, 62 (3·2%) met the inclusion criteria. Only 28 (1·5%) had data to calculate relative risk. We found that more than 200 000 lives per year can be saved globally with the implementation of a complete trauma system with 100% coverage in LMICs. Partial system improvements such as establishing trauma centres (>145 000 lives saved) and instituting and improving trauma teams (>115 000) were also effective. Emergency medical services had a wide range of effects on mortality, from increasing mortality to saving lives (>200 000 excess deaths to >200 000 lives saved per year). For clinical interventions, damage control resuscitation (>60 000 lives saved per year) and institution of interventional radiology (>50 000 lives saved per year) were the most effective interventions. On the basis of the scarce evidence available, a few key interventions have been identified to provide guidance to policy makers and clinicians on evidence-based interventions that can reduce deaths due to RTIs in LMICs. We also highlight important gaps in knowledge on the effects of other interventions.

Gun Violence Education in Medical School: A Call to Action

ISSUE

Gun violence is a major public health burden, adversely affecting patients, families, and communities across the United States (U.S.) and the world. To manage the burden of injury from gun violence and identify primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention strategies, physician leaders must understand the biological and psychosocial aspects of this complex problem. However, gun violence and its complexities are not widely taught in medical schools. This Observation article details why gun violence education is not being included in medical education, offers an informed, science-based model for the disease of gun violence, and suggests methods to integrate gun violence education into medical school curricula.

EVIDENCE

We surveyed the literature for articles addressing this topic and for studies on medical school education and curriculum changes. We also examined some of the resources commonly used in medical school for mention of gun violence. Finally, we conducted a query of the AAMC Curriculum Inventory to further see if gun violence is currently incorporated into participating U.S. medical schools' curricula and found that gun violence is not a topic discussed in any significant capacity at most U.S. medical schools. Only 13-18% of schools that participated in the AAMC Curriculum Inventory during the years 2015-2018 documented gun and firearm content in their curriculum. Any other disease with similar number of deaths and injuries would be considered worthy of inclusion into medical education curricula.

IMPLICATIONS

Medical school curricula commonly adjust with the ebb and flow of disease. Although gun violence meets the classic definition of a disease and is a major cause of harm and death, it is not taught to medical students. We assert that gun violence should be taught and framed as a biopsychosocial disease, highlighting many opportunities for interventions across a team of health care providers and physician leaders. We strongly urge medical schools to evaluate their curricula, address this teaching gap, and train the next generation of physician leaders to address all aspects of gun violence.

Conflict of interest disclosure in orthopaedic and general surgical trauma literature

SIGNIFICANCE

Financial relationships between industry and physicians are a key aspect for the advancement of surgical practice and training, but these relationships also result in a conflict of interest with respect to research. Financial payments to physicians are public within the United States in the Open Payments Database, but the rate of accurate financial disclosure of payments has not previously been studied in trauma surgery publications.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the rate of accurate financial disclosure in major surgical trauma journals compared with the Open Payments Database.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The names of all authors publishing in The Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, Injury, and The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery between 2015 and 2018 were obtained from MEDLINE. Non-physicians, physicians outside of the United States, physicians without payments in the Open Payments Database, and physicians with payments types of only "Food and Drink" were excluded. Financial disclosure statements were obtained from the journal websites and manually compared against Open Payments Database entries the year prior to submission and during the year of submission up until 3 months prior to publication for each individual physician. Main outcomes were accuracy of disclosure published with each article, total amount of payments received (disclosure or undisclosed), surgical subspecialty of the reporting physician. Statistical comparisons were made using Chi-square testing with significance defined as p<0.05.

RESULTS

Between 2015 and 2018, 5070 articles were published involving 28,948 authors. 2945 authors met inclusion criteria. 490 authors accurately disclosed their financial relationships with industry (16.6%). The median value of undisclosed payments was $22,140 [IQR $6465, $77,221] which was significantly less than the medial value of disclosed payment of $66,433 [IQR $24,624, $161,886], p<0.001 Orthopaedic surgeons disclosed at a higher rate (26.3%, 479/1818) than general surgeons (4.8%, 47/971), p<0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician-industry relationships are key for advancing surgical practice and providing training to physicians. These relationships are not inherently unethical, but there is consistently high inaccuracy of financial disclosure across multiple trauma surgery journals which may indicate the need for further education on financial disclosures during surgical training or active obtainment of publicly available financial disclosures by journals.

Building the future for national trauma research

This paper describes the current funding, infrastructure growth and future state of trauma research. It also introduces a group of review articles generated from The Future of Trauma Research: Innovations in Research Methodology conference hosted by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma in July 2019.