Evaluation of Research Productivity among Academic Glaucoma Specialists Using the Relative Citation Ratio.

PURPOSE: To provide relative citation ratio (RCR) benchmark data for the field of glaucoma. DESIGN: Cross-sectional bibliometric analysis. SUBJECTS: Fellowship-trained glaucoma faculty at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited institutions. METHODS: Glaucoma faculty were individually indexed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) iCite website. Publication count, mean RCR score, and weighted RCR score were collected for each author between May and August 2023 and included PubMed-listed articles from 1980 to 2023. Data were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and acquisition of a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total number of publications, mean RCR value, and weighted RCR value. RESULTS: Five hundred twenty-six academic glaucoma specialists from 113 institutions were indexed. These physicians produced highly impactful research with a median publication count of 13 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-38), median RCR of 1.41 (IQR 0.97-1.98), and median weighted RCR of 16.89 (4.80-63.39). Academic rank, career duration, and having a PhD were associated with increased publication count, mean RCR, and weighted RCR. Publication count and weighted RCR differed significantly by sex; however, no difference was observed with mean RCR. CONCLUSIONS: Current academic glaucoma specialists have high mean RCR values relative to the NIH standard RCR value of 1. This benchmark data serve as a more accurate gauge of research impact within the glaucoma community and can be used to inform self, institutional, and departmental evaluations. Additionally, the mean RCR may provide an accurate metric for quantifying research productivity among historically underrepresented groups that are disadvantaged by time-dependent factors such as number of publications. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Evaluation of Research Productivity Among Academic Cornea, External Diseases, and Refractive Surgery Ophthalmologists Using the Relative Citation Ratio.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to provide relative citation ratio (RCR) benchmark data for cornea and external diseases specialists. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis. SUBJECTS: Subjects included were fellowship-trained cornea and external diseases faculty at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited institutions in the United States. METHODS: Academic specialists were indexed using the National Institutes of Health iCite Web site. Publication count, mean RCR score, and weighted RCR score were obtained between October 2022 and January 2023 by examining PubMed-listed publications from 1980 to 2022. Data were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and acquisition of a Doctor of Philosophy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were publication count, mean RCR value, and weighted RCR value. RESULTS: The cohort included 602 specialists from 112 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited institutions. These clinician-scientists produced highly impactful research with a median publication count of 15 (interquartile ranges 4-41), median RCR of 1.4 (interquartile ranges 0.91-1.88), and median-weighted RCR of 20.28 (5.3-66.69). Both academic rank and career length were associated with greater publication count and RCR values. Male sex was also associated with greater publications counts and RCR scores compared with female faculty. Acquisition of a Doctor of Philosophy was associated with greater publication counts and weighted RCR scores but no difference in mean RCR scores. CONCLUSIONS: Academic cornea and external diseases specialists conduct high-impact research, with a median RCR of 1.4, exceeding the NIH standard value of 1. These data provide RCR benchmark data for the field to inform self, institutional, and departmental evaluations. These results also highlight a significant gender disparity in the field necessitating efforts to increase female representation and ensure equal opportunities.

Mismatched Postsurgical Opioid Prescription to Liver Transplant Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study From a Single High-volume Transplant Center.

BACKGROUND: Improper opioid prescription after surgery is a well-documented iatrogenic contributor to the current opioid epidemic in North America. In fact, opioids are known to be overprescribed to liver transplant patients, and liver transplant patients with high doses or prolonged postsurgical opioid use have higher risks of graft failure and death. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 552 opioid-naive patients undergoing liver transplant at an academic center between 2012 and 2019. The primary outcome was the discrepancy between the prescribed discharge opioid daily dose and each patient's own inpatient opioid consumption 24 h before discharge. Variables were analyzed with Wilcoxon and chi-square tests and logistic regression. RESULTS: Opioids were overprescribed in 65.9% of patients, and 54.3% of patients who required no opioids the day before discharge were discharged with opioid prescriptions. In contrast, opioids were underprescribed in 13.4% of patients, among whom 27.0% consumed inpatient opioids but received no discharge opioid prescription. The median prescribed opioid daily dose was 333.3% and 56.3% of the median inpatient opioid daily dose in opioid overprescribed and underprescribed patients, respectively. Importantly, opioid underprescribed patients had higher rates of opioid refill 1 to 30 and 31 to 90 d after discharge, and the rate of opioid underprescription more than doubled from 2016 to 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Opioids are both over- and underprescribed to liver transplant patients, and opioid underprescribed patients had higher rates of opioid refill. Therefore, we proposed to prescribe discharge opioid prescriptions based on liver transplant patients' inpatient opioid consumption to provide patient-centered opioid prescriptions.

Mismatched opioid prescription in patients discharged after neurological surgeries: a retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT: Although postsurgical overprescription has been well-studied, postsurgical opioid underprescription remains largely overlooked. This retrospective cohort study was to investigate the extent of discharge opioid overprescription and underprescription in patients after neurological surgeries. Six thousand nine hundred forty-nine adult opioid-naive patients who underwent inpatient neurosurgical procedures at the University of California San Francisco were included. The primary outcome was the discrepancy between individual patient's prescribed daily oral morphine milligram equivalent (MME) at discharge and patient's own inpatient daily MME consumed within 24 hours of discharge. Analyses include Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and χ 2 tests, and linear or multivariable logistic regression. 64.3% and 19.5% of patients were opioid overprescribed and underprescribed, respectively, with median prescribed daily MME 360% and 55.2% of median inpatient daily MME in opioid overprescribed and underprescribed patients, respectively. 54.6% of patients with no inpatient opioid the day before discharge were opioid overprescribed. Opioid underprescription dose-dependently increased the rate of opioid refill 1 to 30 days after discharge. From 2016 to 2019, the percentage of patients with opioid overprescription decreased by 24.8%, but the percentage of patients with opioid underprescription increased by 51.2%. Thus, the mismatched discharge opioid prescription in patients after neurological surgeries presented as both opioid overprescription and underprescription, with a dose-dependent increased rate of opioid refill 1 to 30 days after discharge in opioid underprescription. Although we are fighting against opioid overprescription to postsurgical patients, we should not ignore postsurgical opioid underprescription.

Discharge Opioid Over- and Underprescription to Patients after General Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Although postoperative opioid overprescription has been well studied, little is known about opioid underprescription. This study aims to determine the extent of improper discharge opioid prescription in patients undergoing general surgery procedures. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study investigated opioid-naïve adult patients who underwent inpatient general surgery at an academic medical center between June 2012 and December 2019. The primary outcome was the difference between individual patient's inpatient daily oral morphine milligram equivalent (MME) 24 hours before discharge and patient's prescribed daily MME at discharge. The data were analyzed using chi-square, Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, and Kruskal-Wallis tests and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 5,531 patients, 58.1% had opioid overprescription, and 22.4% had opioid underprescription. Median prescribed daily MME was 311% of median inpatient daily MME in overprescribed patients and 56.3% of median inpatient daily MME in underprescribed patients. About half (52.3%) of patients who consumed no opioids on the day before discharge were opioid overprescribed, and 69.9% of patients who required inpatient daily opioid of >100 MME were opioid underprescribed. Opioid-underprescribed patients had an increased opioid refill rate 1 to 30 days after discharge, whereas opioid-overprescribed patients had an increased refill rate 31 to 60 days after discharge. From 2017 to 2019, the percentage of overprescribed patients decreased by 35.8%, but the percentage of underprescribed patients increased by 42.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Although avoiding postoperative opioid overprescription remains imperative, preventing postoperative opioid underprescription is also essential. We recommend using a patient-centered approach to match the daily dose of opioid prescription with each patient's inpatient daily opioid consumption.