An Evaluation of Research Publications for General Surgery Residents And its Influence on the Future Pursuit of Fellowship or Academic Career.

INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires residency programs to implement research and other scholarly activities into their training curriculum. Encouraging residents to publish during residency is believed to promote research throughout their careers; however, the rate of research outcomes among general surgery residents remains unknown. Our study aims to determine associated factors that influence publication rates before, during, and after general surgery residency. METHODS: This observational study employed a cross-sectional design. We examined whether research outcomes during general surgery residency was associated with academic advancement or continued research involvement after residency. We identified 321 general surgery residency programs on the Doximity website and randomly selected 50 to include in our sample. Of these programs, graduate rosters for 31 programs were located and subsequently included. Of the 405 residency graduates identified, we recorded the number of peer-reviewed publications, H-indices, fellowships, and whether the graduate pursued a career in private practice or academia. RESULTS: Among the 405 physicians analyzed, 3815 total publications were identified with a mean of 9.4 (SD 11.8) per person. The most reported study design was observational studies (46.5%; 1775/3815) and the least reported was systematic reviews/meta-analyses (1.4%; 52/3815). The number of publications before residency positively correlated with having a higher h-index (r = 0.4). We also found that physicians who completed a fellowship had more publications during residency (mean = 4.7, SD = 6.5) than those not pursuing a fellowship (mean = 1.5, SD = 2.7; t= -4.3. p ≤ 0.001). We observed a statistically significant increase in the likelihood a physician pursued a career in academic medicine if they pursued a fellowship (OR: 3.77, 95% CI: 2.0-7.2) and if they had published research as a primary author (OR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.0-1.5). CONCLUSION: Increased research productivity was associated with continued academic pursuits and an increased likelihood of pursuing fellowship training after residency.

Evaluating the relationship between industry sponsorship and conflicts of interest among systematic review authors on treatments for cannabis use disorder.

Background: Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug worldwide. In addition to potential adverse effects, an estimated 9% consistent cannabis users are likely to become dependent and may develop a cannabis use disorder (CUD). Methods: This cross-sectional study developed a search strategy using Ovid, MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on CUD treatment in June 2020. These reviews were evaluated for conflicts of interest (COIs) per previously developed classification scheme. Our primary objectives were to (1) evaluate the presence of disclosed or undisclosed COI of systematic review authors, regarding treatment of CUD; and (2) determine whether overall summary effect estimates, narrative results and conclusions were influenced by the presence of disclosed or undisclosed COIs among systematic review authors. Results: Our systematic search returned 560 articles which 9 systematic reviews were eligible for data extraction. We found 77.8% (7/9) contained at least one author with a COI. From the 51 authors included, 29.4% (15/51) were found to have a COI. Forty-four percent (4/9) were funded, 22.2% (2/9) were not funded, and 33.3% (3/9) had no funding statements. Out of the 7 systematic reviews with one or more authors containing COI, 14.2% (1/7) included results favoring the treatment group and 28.6% (2/7) included conclusions favoring the treatment group. Our results showed no significance between funding source and results (p = 0.429) or conclusions. Additionally, we found no significance between the presence of COIs with the favorability of results (p = 0.56) or conclusions. Conclusion: Multiple studies favored the treatment of cannabis-containing products, even though COIs were found in the majority of the systematic reviews. COIs have the ability to sway results of a study, which can affect clinical decision-making. Stricter guidelines should be enforced among authors displaying COIs in systematic reviews studying CUD treatment.

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

CONTEXT: Traditionally, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires residency programs to implement research and other scholarly activities into their training curriculum. Encouraging residents to publish during residency is believed to promote research throughout their careers; however, no study has attempted to quantify research productivity among orthopedic surgery residents before, during, and after residency. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether publishing in peer-reviewed journals during orthopedic residencies was an indicator of continued academic achievement after graduation. METHODS: This study was observational in nature and employed a cross-sectional design. We examined whether research outcomes during orthopedic residency was associated with academic advancement or continued research involvement after residency. We identified 201 orthopedic residency programs on the Doximity website and randomly selected 50 to include in our sample. Of these programs, graduate rosters for 31 programs were located and subsequently included. Of the 341 graduates identified, we recorded the number of peer-reviewed publications, H-indices, fellowships, and whether the graduate pursued a career in private practice or academia. RESULTS: Orthopedic residency graduates from 31 programs published a total of 1923 peer-reviewed manuscripts. On average, residents had a total of 5.6 publications and an h-index of 3.2. Residents entering academia and pursuing fellowships had a significantly higher total number of publications, higher number of first-author publications, and greater H-indices compared to those who did not enter academia or pursue a fellowship. CONCLUSIONS: Increased research productivity was associated with continued academic pursuits and an increased likelihood of pursuing fellowship training after residency.

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Covering Treatments for Achilles Tendon Ruptures.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 18 in every 100 000 people have experienced a ruptured Achilles tendon. Despite the prevalence of this condition, treatment options remain contested. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of spin-reporting practices that may exaggerate benefit or minimize harm-in abstracts of systematic reviews related to Achilles tendon repair. We also evaluated whether particular study characteristics were associated with spin. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS: We developed a search strategy for Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase for systematic reviews focused on Achilles tendon treatment. Following title and abstract screening of these search returns, these reviews were evaluated for spin (according to a previously developed classification scheme) and received AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2) appraisals by 2 investigators in a masked, duplicate manner. Study characteristics for each review were also extracted in duplicate. RESULTS: Our systematic search returned 251 articles of which 43 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were eligible for data extraction. We found that 65.1% of included studies contained spin (28/43). Spin type 3 was the most common type, occurring in 53.5% (23/43) of abstracts. Spin types 5, 6, 1, and 4 occurred in 16.3% (7/43), 9.3% (4/43), 7% (3/43), and 5.3% (1/43), respectively. Spin types 2, 7, 8, and 9 did not occur. AMSTAR-2 appraised 32.6% (14/43) of the studies as "moderate" quality, 32.6% (14/43) as "low" quality, and 34.9% (15/43) as "critically low" quality. No systematic reviews were rated as "high" quality. There was no significant association between the presence of spin and the following study characteristics: intervention type, article discussing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) adherence, journal recommending PRISMA adherence, funding sources, journal 5-year impact factor, year the review was received for publication, or AMSTAR-2 critical appraisals. CONCLUSION: Spin was present in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses-covering Achilles tendon tear treatment. Steps should be taken to improve the reporting quality of abstracts on Achilles tendon treatment as well as other common orthopedic conditions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In order to avoid negative patient outcomes, articles should be free of spin within the abstract.