An analysis of publication trends of orthopedic surgery residency graduates in relation to academic achievement

Predicting academic productivity among American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons fellowship faculty from publications acquired before and during surgical training

BACKGROUND

Orthopedic residency and fellowship applicants with a strong research record are highly valued for their potential in continuing academic excellence. Despite this, the association between research productivity during training and future academic productivity as an attending orthopedic surgeon is not well-established. We assess the effects of research output during different periods of surgical training as well as residency location on long-term academic productivity as an attending shoulder and elbow surgeon.

METHODS

A search of the 2022-2023 American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Fellowship Directory was conducted to identify a list of orthopedic shoulder and elbow fellowship faculty members. Each surgeon's residency, fellowship and current institution of practice were determined and stratified by geographic location. Total publication counts acquired before residency, during residency, during fellowship, and after fellowship were collected for each faculty member. Attending publication rates and H-indices were calculated. A multivariate linear regression model was created, and significance was set at a P value <.05.

RESULTS

A total of 149 shoulder and elbow fellowship faculty members representing 34 fellowship programs were identified. The average number of total publications per surgeon was 88.8 ± 102. The average attending publication rate was 5.29 ± 6.89 publications per year. The average H-index for included surgeons was 27.8 ± 24.4. The number of publications acquired before residency (β = 0.293; P < .001), during residency (β = 0.110; P = .025) and during fellowship (β = 0.593; P < .001) were significantly associated with an increased attending publication rate, but no association was observed with the H-index [before residency (β = -0.221; P = .574), during residency (β = 0.045; P = .866), during fellowship (β = 0.198; P = .678)]. There were no significant differences in total publication count (P = .397), attending publication rate (P = .237), or H-index (P = .364) based on location of residency training.

DISCUSSION

Research output before and during surgical training is predictive of continued academic productivity as a shoulder and elbow surgeon. In particular, greater productivity during surgical fellowship was most predictive of academic output as an attending. While long-term academic productivity does not seem to be influenced by the geographic location of residency training, attending surgeons practicing in the Midwest had significantly greater total publication counts and H-indices but similar annual publication rates.

Increasing Use of Promotional Language in Orthopaedic Surgery Abstracts-An Analysis of 112,916 Abstracts 1985 to 2020

BACKGROUND

Increasing use of "hype" language (eg, language overstating research impact) has been documented in the scientific community. Evaluating language in abstracts is important because readers may use abstracts to extrapolate findings to entire publications. Our purpose was to assess the frequency of hype language within orthopaedic surgery.

METHODS

One hundred thirty-nine hype adjectives were previously identified using a linguistics approach. All publicly available abstracts from 18 orthopaedic surgery journals between 1985 and 2020 were obtained, and hype adjectives were tabulated. Change in frequency of these adjectives was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 112,916 abstracts were identified. 67.0% (948/1414) of abstracts in 1985 contained hype adjectives, compared with 92.5% (5287/5714) in 2020. The average number of hype adjectives per abstract increased by 136% (1.1 to 2.6). Of the 139 adjectives, 87 (62.5%) increased in frequency and 40 (28.7%) decreased in frequency while 12 (9%) were not used. The hype adjectives with the largest absolute increases in frequency were quality (+324wpm), significant (+320wpm), systematic (+246wpm), top (+239wpm), and international (+201wpm). The five hype adjectives with the largest relative increases in frequency were novel (+10500%), international (+2850%), urgent (+2600%), robust (+2300%), and emerging (+1400%).

CONCLUSION

Promotional language is increasing in orthopaedic surgery abstracts. Authors, editors, and reviewers should seek to minimize the usage of nonobjective language.

A Near-Miss in Clinical Outcomes Research Data Collection

ABSTRACT

We present the case of a near-miss in clinical research to illustrate a situation in which errors in data collection would have led to different results in the data analysis, with the potential for drawing incorrect conclusions. Conclusions based on data errors may adversely influence future medical decision-making in patient care. In the interest of presenting this as an educational, nonpunitive, quality-improvement report, the study and the involved researchers remain anonymous, and the specific details and exact number of patients are not reported.

High Research Productivity During Orthopaedic Surgery Residency May Be Predicted by Number of Publications as a Medical Student

Introduction

Orthopaedic applicants have increased the average number of publications on their residency application to compete with the growing competitiveness of the field. The purpose of this study was to assess whether research productivity before orthopaedic residency and caliber of one's institution is correlated with academic productivity during residency.

Methods

Scopus was used to extract publication metrics. Quantity and quality (how often the publications were cited) were analyzed at 2 different time periods: before and during residency. All subjects in the study had graduated an ACGME-accredited orthopaedic surgery residency in 2021. Military residents, international medical graduates, and residents not listed on their department's website were excluded. Residents were categorized as both high (≥2 publications) or low (<2 publications) publishers according to their pre-residency publications. They were also categorized based on their program's Jones et al. research productivity ranking.

Results

For the 758 residents, the median number of publications was 0 (Interquartile Range [IQR]: 0-2) and 3 (IQR: 1-6) before and during residency, respectively. High publishing medical students had more publications during training than low publishers (6 [IQR: 3-14] and 2 [IQR: 1-4], p < 0.001). Residents at higher ranked programs also had more publications (4 [IQR: 2-9] and 2 [IQR: 0-4], p < 0.001). High publishing students now training at lower ranked institutions had more publications during residency than low publishers who trained at more productive institutions (4 [IQR: 1-9] and 3 [IQR: 1-6], p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Having 2 or more publications before residency is correlated with an increased number of publications during residency. While attending a higher academically productive program is associated with increased resident publications, a high publishing medical student would be expected to have more publications during residency than a low publishing student, regardless of program rank. Notably, most matched applicants continue to have zero publications before matriculation.

Trends in Female Authorship in Orthopaedic Literature from 2002 to 2021: An Analysis of 168,451 Authors

BACKGROUND

Significant gender disparity exists in orthopaedic surgery. While women have increasingly entered the field, we are short of the critical mass needed to drive change, including in authorship. This study aimed to characterize trends in authorship in peer-reviewed orthopaedic journals in the context of gender.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional bibliometric study of orthopaedic journals in the United States. Articles that were indexed in the orthopaedic category of the Clarivate Journal Citation Report (JCR) and the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) were analyzed (n = 82). Journals not originating from the U.S. (n = 43) or not considered primarily orthopaedic journals (n = 13) were excluded. The 2020 impact factors (IFs) of the remaining 26 journals were recorded. The articles underwent automated data collection from PubMed for January 2002 to December 2021 using R software to collect the title, the journal, the publication year, the first and senior author names, and the country of origin. Gender was determined by Gender API ( https://gender-api.com ). Names with <90% accuracy were excluded.

RESULTS

Overall, 168,451 names were studied, with 85,845 and 82,606 first and senior authors, respectively. Of the first and senior authors, 13.6% and 9.9%, respectively, were female. The proportion of female first authors was significantly greater than the proportion of female senior authors. The average IF was significantly higher for male authors compared with female authors (p < 0.005). Articles with female first authors were significantly more likely to have a female senior author. Orthopaedic subspecialty journals had a smaller proportion of manuscripts authored by female first and senior authors than general journals (p < 0.0001). There were 4,451 articles written by a single author, of which 92% (4,093) were written by a man and 8% (358) were written by a woman. Over the 20-year study period, the proportion of female first authorship exhibited a significant positive trend; however, there was a non-significant increase in female senior authorship.

CONCLUSIONS

Female representation in orthopaedics has been growing over the past decade. Increasing publication rates of female authors reveal steps toward positive gender equity in the field and present an opportunity for female leadership visibility, illustrating the capabilities of women in orthopaedics and encouraging more women to join the field.

What Are the Trends in Research Publication Misrepresentation Among Orthopaedic Residency and Fellowship Applicants From 1996 to 2019? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Because research experience is increasingly important in ranking orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants, determining the accuracy of candidates reporting their scholarly activity is essential. However, disparate and inconsistent findings have made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from individual studies.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this systematic review, we asked: (1) What percentage of research publications are misrepresented among orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants? (2) What percentage of applications contain one or more example of academic misrepresentation? (3) Is research misrepresentation associated with any individual applicant characteristics? (4) What is the publication status of articles listed by applicants as having been submitted to journals?

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. PubMed, EBSCOhost, Medline, and Google Scholar electronic databases were searched on March 10, 2022, to identify all studies that evaluated research misrepresentation in orthopaedic residency and fellowship applications between January 1, 1995, and March 1, 2022. Articles were included if full-text articles in English were available and the study reported on research misrepresentation among orthopaedic residency or fellowship applicants. Studies investigating nonorthopaedic publications, systematic reviews, case studies, duplicate studies among databases, and gray literature were excluded. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of included studies using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) tool. This is a validated assessment tool that grades noncomparative studies from 0 to 16 and studies with control groups from 0 to 24, based on eight criteria related to study design, outcomes assessed, and follow-up. All included articles were noncomparative studies, so the maximum score here was 16, with higher scores indicating better study quality. The mean MINORS score was 13 ± 1 in the studies we included. The final analysis included 10 studies with 5119 applicants. Eight studies evaluated orthopaedic residency applicants and two evaluated fellowship applicants. The applicant classes ranged from 1996 to 2019. Research misrepresentation was defined among studies as nonauthorship of an existing article, claimed authorship of a nonexistent article, or incorrect listing of authorship order for an existing article. Each study's findings and definition of research misrepresentation were considered to allow for a discussion of overall trends. The percentage of misrepresentation was further broken down by the misrepresentation type. Applicant characteristics and destination of submitted articles were also evaluated. Given the potential overlap between applicants among the studies, no pooled analysis was conducted, and results are presented as a narrative summary.

RESULTS

The percentage of overall publication misrepresentation was estimated to range between 1% (13 of 1100) and 21% (27 of 131), with more-recent studies reporting a lower proportion of overall articles misrepresented. Most studies we found claimed that authorship of a nonexistent article was the most common type of misrepresentation. Nonauthorship of an existing article and incorrect authorship order were less common. The percentage of applications with at least one misrepresentation was approximately 20% between 1998 and 2017. Most studies found no applicant characteristics, such as match outcomes, demographic markers, or academic records, that were consistently associated with a higher odds of the candidate misrepresenting his or her research credentials. Finally, approximately half of the articles listed as submitted to journals went on to publication, with one-third going to a different journal with a lower Impact Factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review found that the percentage of overall publication misrepresentations among orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants has generally been low over the past 20 years. However, approximately one-fifth of applications had at least one research misrepresentation, with 2% having multiple misrepresentations on reported publications. There were no consistent applicant characteristics associated with higher odds of research misrepresentation. Additionally, most of the articles listed as submitted to journals for publication were ultimately published.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Although the decrease in overall publication misrepresentation is encouraging, our finding that one-fifth of applicants have research misrepresentation is a cause for concern. In light of a continually evolving application process, orthopaedic residency and fellowship programs must ensure there is integrity related to information that is self-reported by applicants. These findings also serve to encourage faculty members involved in the application screening and decision process to limit biases related to applicant demographics perceived to be associated with a high odds of misrepresentation. Furthermore, governing agencies and program leadership should evaluate methods of verifying unpublished work and provide opportunities for applicants to give publication updates throughout the application cycle.

Academic Productivity of Early Career Transfusion Medicine Specialists: A Workforce Study

Blood Banking/Transfusion Medicine (BB/TM) specialists oversee all aspects of blood component transfusions and are often involved with apheresis, coagulation, and cellular therapy services as well. This study characterizes the BB/TM workforce to determine the scholarly productivity in the first 3 to 5 years after obtaining board certification and the impact of job type, job location, and academic rank on scholarly productivity. Academic productivity was assessed among individuals passing the American Board of Pathology BB/TM board exam between 2016 and 2018 using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Portfolio Analysis tool, iCite. One hundred and 28 BB/TM specialists were included in the analysis. The majority of BB/TM specialists work in academia, are located in the Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic regions, and have a rank of Assistant Professor. Since passing the board exam, 76.5% (98/128) of BB/TM specialists have published papers, with 4.0 (IQR = 1-8) total number of published papers per individual, and 791 total papers amongst the group. The median publications per individual per year since passing boards is 0.9 (IQR = 0.2-2.3) the number of publications per year since passing boards for BB/TM specialists in academia is significantly higher compared to other jobs at 1.33 (IQR, 0.5-2.89, Kruskal-Wallis P = .03) per individual Assistant Professors and Associate Professors (1.3, IQR= 0.4-2.7 and 1.4, IQR = 0.6-3.3, Mann-Whitney test P > .99). BB/TM specialists who passed the board exam between 2016 and 2018 are highly academically productive, especially those working in academia where publications are necessary for promotion. BB/TM physicians are an extensively trained and academically-minded group of practitioners.

Does Research Training lead to Academic Success in Orthopedic Surgery? An Analysis of U.S Academic Orthopedic Surgeons

BACKGROUND

Academic surgeons are invaluable for scientific advancement and training the next generation of orthopedic surgeons.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe a cohort of academic orthopedic surgeons currently in practice with common academic metrics.

METHODS

ACGME-accredited orthopedic surgery programs with a university affiliation were identified. The primary independent variable in this study was formal research training as defined by a research fellowship or attainment of a PhD. Outcomes included academic rank, h-index attained, number of publications, and funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

RESULTS

1641 orthopedic surgeons were identified across 73 programs. 116 surgeons (7.07%) received formal academic research training. The academic training group and non-academic training group had a similar completion rate of clinical fellowship programs (93.97% vs 93.77%, p=0.933), attainment of other advanced degrees (10.34% vs 8.46%, p=0.485), and years since completion of training (17.49-years vs 16.28-years, p=0.284). Surgeons completing academic research training had a significantly higher h-index (18.46 vs 10.88, p<0.001), higher publication number (67.98 vs 37.80, p<0.001), and more likely to be NIH funded (16.38% vs 3.15%, p<0.001). Surgeons completing academic training were more likely to be associate professors (34.48% vs 25.77%), professors (25.00% vs 22.82%), and endowed professors (10.34% vs 2.43%) (p<0.001). On regression analysis, formalized research training was independently associated with h-index and NIH funding (p<0.001 for both).

CONCLUSION

Formalized research training, either as a research fellowship or PhD, is associated with an increased h-index and likelihood of NIH funding, although this association was not found for academic rank after adjusted regression analysis.