The Top 20 Most Prolific Authors in the American Journal of Neuroradiology: What Is Their Impact?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Many articles that are relevant to patient care but published in radiology journals may escape notice by clinicians. We sought to determine how often the 20 most prolific American Journal of Neuroradiology (AJNR) authors from 2013 to 2017 published in clinical journals and the extent to which their articles were disseminated into the clinical literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We counted all authors' first- or senior-authored articles in the AJNR from 2013 to 2017 to identify the 20 most prolific authors in AJNR. We searched for these 20 authors' total articles from 2013 to 2017 to determine which were published in radiology or clinical journals and the number of citations received from radiology and clinical journals. Authors were sorted into quartiles according to these metrics, and other descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: The top 20 AJNR authors contributed to 1463 articles during 5 years, including 711 (48.6%) in radiology and 752 (51.4%) in clinical journals. These articles were cited 15,857 times, including 4659 (29.3%) by articles in radiology journals. The more prolific authors published in clinical journals more often (Spearman ρ = 0.65, P = .002) and were cited more (ρ = 0.42, P = .07). Articles published in clinical journals were cited more often (mean, 12.3 clinical, 9.3 radiology general versus 8.7 in AJNR), and whether published in radiology or clinical journals, they were cited more frequently by clinical journals. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of where it is published, radiology research is disseminating into the clinical realm. Radiology articles published in clinical journals are cited more often than those published in radiology journals.

Survivorship care for early-stage colorectal cancer: a national survey of general surgeons and colorectal surgeons.

AIM: Few data are available on the optimal long-term care of early-stage colorectal cancer survivors, termed survivorship care. We aimed to investigate current practice in the management of patients following treatment for early-stage colorectal cancer. METHOD: We performed an internet survey of members of the American Society for Colon and Rectal Surgeons about several aspects of long-term care, including allocation of clinician responsibility, challenges with transitions to primary care physicians (PCPs), long-term care plan provision and recommended surgical follow-up duration. RESULTS: Overall, 251 surgeons responded. Surgeons reported taking primary responsibility for managing adverse surgical effects (93.2%) and surveillance testing (imaging and laboratories 68.6%, endoscopy 82.4%). Barriers to PCP handoffs included patient preference for surgical follow-up (endorsed by 76.6%) and inadequate communication with PCPs (endorsed by 36.9%). Approximately one-third of surgeons routinely provide survivorship care plans to PCPs; surgeons who received formal survivorship training were more likely to do so compared to those without such training (OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.57, 6.92). Although only 20.4% of surgeons follow their patients beyond 5 years, individuals in practice longer were more likely to continue long-term follow-up than those with ≤ 10 years of experience. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest survey of surgeons regarding long-term management for early-stage colorectal cancer and highlights the potential for improved coordination with PCPs and increased implementation of survivorship care plans.

The immune response of mice to bacterial antigens given by mouth.

The secretory and systemic antibody responses to oral dead Escherichia coli were examined in A strain mice. The best responses were obtained in mice dosed with 1 x 10(10) bacteria. Orally immunized animals showed an enhanced response to subsequent parenteral immunization with somatic antigens. This effect could be passively transferred with serum. In contrast, the response to the capsular antigen K88 was reduced in the same animals.