Posters Presented at North American Skull Base Society 2016-2018: What Factors Influence Their Publication?

Objective Research productivity impacts an individual's academic credentials and serves to advance the field of neurosurgery at large. Poster presentations allow researchers to share preliminary results with respected colleagues; however, more critical is the ability to publish peer-reviewed articles. Key factors that lead posters to journal publication are not well understood and difficult to quantify. This study investigates the association between bibliometrics of authors who presented posters at the North American Skull Base Society (NASBS) meeting and odds of journal publication. Methods Posters from the 2016 to 2018 NASBS archive were reviewed. Hirsch-index (h-index) of first (FH) and senior (SH) authors, research type, research topic, and number of poster authors (nAuthPost) were collected. For posters published as journal articles, number of days from poster presentation to publication (nDays), number of authors in published articles (nAuthArt), and journal impact factor (JIF) were recorded. Results One-hundred sixty-nine of 481 posters (35.1%) were published as articles. Median FH and SH for published versus unpublished posters were 7 versus 5 ( p = 0.01) and 29 versus 19 ( p < 0.001), respectively. When adjusted with multivariate regression, only SH ( p < 0.001) and nAuthPost ( p = 0.001) were significantly associated with odds of publication. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) nDays was 361 (394). Increased authors from poster to article ( p = 0.017) and lower FH ( p = 0.08) were correlated with increased time to publication. Median (IQR) JIF for all publications was 1.723 (1.068). Conclusions Bibliometrics such as h-index and number of authors from posters can help objectively characterize and predict future success in research productivity.

The Association Between H-Index and Publication of Plastic Surgery Meeting Presenters From 2014 to 2017.

BACKGROUND: Plastic surgery is a competitive specialty that values research productivity among members of the field. The Hirsch index has been shown to measure a researcher's scientific impact. This study sought to determine whether an association exists between H-indices and the probability of and speed to publication. METHODS: Using Scopus, Google Scholar, PubMed, and the Plastic Surgery the Meeting (PSTM) website, first author (FAHi) and senior author (SAHi) H-indices (n = 1048) from Plastic Surgery the Meeting (PSTM) abstracts from 2014 to 2017 were collected. Whether or not an abstract was ultimately published in a peer-reviewed journal was noted. If published, number of days between PSTM presentation and publication date were recorded. Logistic regression model was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: In total, 592 out of 1048 total abstracts were published as manuscripts. FAHi and SAHi had significant positive correlations with odds of publication. Both FAHi and SAHi showed positive correlation with the odds of abstract publication (P < 0.001 and P = 0.033). Impact of FAHi on likelihood of publication was greater than that of SAHi. The correlation between FAHi and SAHi with the number of days until abstract publication was not significant (P = 0.333 and P = 0.856). For abstracts published before the PSTM presentation date (15.9% of published), only FAHi (P = 0.008) showed positive correlation of publication before presentation. CONCLUSIONS: The Hirsch index provides an objective method for evaluating the probability that an abstract will lead to manuscript publication, in addition to its traditional application in gauging the impact of research. The findings of this study support that both FAHi and SAHi have a positive, direct correlation with the probability of publication.

A novel telemedicine technique for evaluation of ocular exam findings via smartphone images.

In this study, we compared the assessment of remote smartphone photographs to in-office exams in the diagnosis of two groups of external eye diseases, red-eye pathology and post-operative eyelid surgery complications. Participants were examined and received an in-office diagnosis by either a corneal or oculoplastic specialist. After viewing an educational video on smartphone photography, the patient's companion then took a series of standardized photographs. Two additional corresponding specialists then made a separate diagnosis via the interpretation of only smartphone images and the patient's history. 'Remote' and in-office diagnoses were compared using a kappa test for agreement. The remote and in-office diagnoses were in agreement for 27 of 28 eyes, representing a chance-corrected Kappa agreement rate of 93% (95% confidence interval: 79-99%). Among the 16 red eyes, the diagnoses were in agreement for 15 of 16 red eyes, representing a chance-corrected Kappa agreement rate of 92% (95% confidence interval: 77-99%). Among the 12 eyes with post-operative eyelid surgery complications, the diagnoses were in perfect agreement. Our results suggest that the diagnosis of 1) red-eye pathology and 2) post-operative eyelid surgery complications based on smartphone images may be comparable to in-office exams.