Best practices for enhancing surgical research: a perspective from the Canadian Association of Chairs of Surgical Research

Evaluating Strength of Evidence of Pediatric Otolaryngology Research Literature: A 20-Year Review

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Quantity and quality of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OTL-HNS) research are increasing, yet patterns within Pediatric OTL-HNS publications are unknown. This study examines trends in the level of evidence of pediatric OTL-HNS articles over a 20-year period to quantify the growth and characterize contributing factors.

STUDY DESIGN

Review article.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on 12 peer-reviewed OTL-HNS journals at three time-points: 1996, 2006, and 2016. Pediatric-specific OTL-HNS journals were selected; all were among the top 10 highest impact factor journals, with one pediatric-specific and one Canadian journal. Publication details, author characteristics, and study focus were collected. Papers were classified based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Of the 1,733 articles reviewed, 727 met inclusion criteria. A greater absolute number of pediatric OTL-HNS articles were published over the years studied: from 95 in 1996 to 359 in 2016 (P < .001). As well, the absolute number of high-quality studies has increased over the study period, from 28 articles in 1996 to 100 articles in 2016. However, the relative percentage of high-quality papers remained stable between 27.9% and 32.2% with an average of 29.7% (P = .89). Higher impact factor journals did not tend to publish higher-quality pediatric OTL-HNS articles (P = .48).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past 20 years, there is no appreciable improvement in the proportion of high-quality publications in pediatric OTL-HNS; however, there is an overall greater number of high-quality papers within OTL-HNS literature. These findings likely relate to challenges of research within pediatric surgical specialties.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 2021.

Can an Academic RVU Model Balance the Clinical and Research Challenges in Surgery?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to identify perceptions of academic surgeons regarding academic productivity and assess its relationship to clinical productivity. We hypothesized that these perceptions would vary based on respondent characteristics including clinical activity and leadership roles.

DESIGN

This retrospective, survey-based study was performed from August 26, 2019 to September 26, 2019.

SETTING

The setting was academic surgical departments across the US.

PARTICIPANTS

The survey instrument was administered to faculty members of the Association of Program Directors in Surgery. A total of 105 academic surgeons responded.

RESULTS

Most respondents were Program Directors (59%) of general surgery programs. Of the participants, 30% identified as Professor, 36% as Associate Professor, and 15% as Assistant Professor. Respondents agreed that multiple academic pursuits or factors should count towards academic productivity including the following (in descending order): completing a first-authored manuscript (98.8%), completing a senior-authored manuscript (97.7%), chairing a national committee (94.1%), serving on a national committee (88.2%), completing a second-authored manuscript (88.0%), completing a first lecture (83.7%), completing a middle-authored manuscript (71.8%), completing a lecture (whether or not repeated) (70.9%), impact factor of journal (60.7%), and attendance at grand rounds (57.0%). Perspectives did not vary significantly based on surgeon demographics, clinical setting, or leadership role (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Perceptions regarding what constitutes academic productivity and merit a reduction in clinical expectation are remarkably similar across multiple surgeon characteristics including demographics, academic title, leadership role, and practice environment.