Prognostic Role of Ventricular Size and Its Dynamics in Patients With Leptomeningeal Metastasis From Solid Tumors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hydrocephalus is a common radiologic sign in patients with leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) from solid tumors which can be assessed using the Evans index (EI). Here, we explored the prognostic value of ventricular size in LM. METHODS: We identified patients with LM from solid tumors by chart review at 3 academic hospitals to explore the prognostic associations of the EI at diagnosis, first follow-up, and progression. RESULTS: We included 113 patients. The median age was 58.3 years (interquartile range [IQR] 46.1-65.8), 41 patients (36%) were male, and 72 patients (64%) were female. The most frequent cancers were lung cancer (n = 39), breast cancer (n = 36), and melanoma (n = 23). The median EI at baseline was 0.28 (IQR 0.26-0.31); the EI value was 0.27 or more in 67 patients (59%) and 0.30 or more in 37 patients (33%). Among patients with MRI follow-up, the EI increased by 0.01 or more in 16 of 31 patients (52%), including 8 of 30 patients (30%) without and 10 of 17 patients (59%) with LM progression at first follow-up. At LM progression, an increase of EI of 0.01 or more was noted in 18 of 34 patients (53%). The median survival was 2.9 months (IQR 1-7.2). Patients with a baseline EI below 0.27 had a longer survival than those with an EI of 0.27 or more (5.3 months, IQR 2.4-10.8, vs 1.3 months, IQR 0.6-4.1) (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.135-2.534, p = 0.0099). The median survival was 3.7 months (IQR 1.4-8.3) with an EI below 0.30 vs 1.8 months (IQR 0.8-4.1) with an EI of 0.30 or more (HR 1.40, 95% CI 0.935-1.243, p = 0.1113). Among patients with follow-up scans available, the overall survival was 9.4 months (IQR 5.6-21.0) for patients with stable or decreased EI at first follow-up as opposed to 5.6 months (IQR 2.5-10.5) for those with an increase in the EI (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.937-1.243; p = 0.300). DISCUSSION: The EI at baseline is prognostic in LM. An increase of EI during follow-up may be associated with inferior LM progression-free survival. Independent validation cohorts with larger sample size and evaluation of confounding factors will help to better define the clinical utility of EI assessments in LM.

The impact of Canadian-produced research on the global orthopedic literature: a bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the quality and impact of Canadian-produced research relative to that of other developed nations. The purpose of this study was to determine the contribution of Canadian authors to the orthopedic literature globally and nationally as well as Canada's research productivity in orthopedics. We hypothesized that Canada ranks among the most impactful countries in terms of orthopedic research productivity. METHODS: We performed a bibliometric analysis to identify articles published between 2001 and 2020 in the category of orthopedics. We identified Canada's global rank in terms of overall productivity and assessed the contributions of individual Canadian authors. We also examined the quality of publications as determined by category normalized citation impact (CNCI) and publication in the top quartile of journals (%Q1) in terms of impact factor. In addition, we calculated the percentage of Canadian publications that were in orthopedics. RESULTS: We identified 10 821 orthopedic publications from 2001 to 2020. Canada placed sixth globally in terms of productivity in orthopedic research. The annual productivity of Canadian orthopedic researchers increased over the study period by a factor of 3.2. In terms of research quality, with a %Q1 of 36.5% and a CNCI of 1.22, Canada outperformed Asian countries and the United States; the latter country had a %Q1 of 35.3% and a CNCI of 1.14 over the study period. CONCLUSION: The body of Canadian orthopedic literature has grown consistently over the past 20 years. Despite the overall leadership of the United States and other developed nations such as China and Japan, Canada ranks among the most influential countries in terms of the quality and quantity of orthopedic research.

Bibliometric evaluation of negative publications from orthopedics and traumatology from the ten most influential journals of 2009-2010 and 2019-2020: A comparative study with the "Orthopedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research" journal, using the same analysis of submitted and accepted articles.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data in the literature regarding negative articles concerning surgery in orthopedics and trauma. Knowledge pertaining to treatments or techniques which confer a beneficial effect remains important, as does knowledge regarding those which have a null or pejorative effect. Thus, this study was carried out on negative articles in order to: (1) determine their proportion in the ten predominant journals concerning orthopedic and trauma surgery; (2) assess variability in their publication rate depending on the journal and the year, and compare their citation rate to that of positive articles; (3) specify whether a positive article was more likely to be cited compared to a negative article; (4) carry out the same bibliometric analysis with the "Orthopedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR)" journal, and detect possible selection bias for negative articles during the review. HYPOTHESIS: There are fewer negative articles than positive articles in the literature relating to orthopedic and trauma surgery. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The study was carried out using the ten orthopedic and trauma surgery journals with the highest impact factors for the year 2021. Two periods were compared, 2009-2010 and 2019-2020. Among the 17,812 publications obtained, 11,962 publications were retained to carry out the analysis (technical notes, meta-analyses, editorials and letters to the editor were all excluded). An analysis using the same method was carried out on the 3,727 articles submitted to OTSR from 2015 to 2021, which made it possible to compare the rejected articles to the accepted articles. RESULTS: Negative articles represented 11% (1,342/12,023) of the literature relating to orthopedic and trauma surgery. There were differences in the rate of publication of negative articles depending on the journals (from 4.04% to 17.14%) (p<0.0001). The negative article publication rate did not change between the two periods studied: 534/4963 articles (10.76%) in 2009-2010 versus 802/6999 (11.46%) in 2019-2020 (p=0.23). Positive articles were not cited more often than negative ones: no significant difference between the Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) classes (respectively for classes 0;1[/[1;2[/≥ 2 with 45.66% 28.22% and 26.12% for negative articles versus 44.90% 27.46% and 27.64% for positive articles [p=0.4]) and the Top10% (with 18.86% for negative articles versus 20.10% for positive ones [p=0.28]). The OTSR journal had a rate of negative articles of 9.46% which was within the average range of the journals studied. A selection bias (p<0.02) for negative articles during the review of the OTSR journal was identified with fewer negative articles accepted (115/1216 [9.46%]) than positive articles (164/1330 [12.33%]). DISCUSSION: The publication of negative articles varies according to the journals and although it is modest, at only 11%, it is essential because it allows us not to repeat errors but also not to bias the carrying out of meta-analyses, and among other things to avoid useless studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; case control study from the literature.

Global trends in oncology research: A mixed-methods study of publications and clinical trials from 2010 to 2019.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cancer research effort of some major countries over two 5-year periods (2010-2014 and 2015-2019) on the basis of scientific publications and interventional clinical trial metrics and to analyze the relationship between research effort and cancer burden (incidence and mortality). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical trials were extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov using a specific query. Publications were identified in Web of Science (WoS) using a query based on keywords and were then analyzed using InCites, a bibliometric tool. Bibliometric indicators were computed per country and per period. RESULTS: During 2010-2019, 1 120 821 cancer-related publications were identified in WoS, with 447 900 and 672 921 (+50%) articles respectively published in 2010-2014 and 2015-2019. Meanwhile, 38% and 7% of the articles were published in oncology and cell biology journals, respectively. Exactly 30% of the published articles were contributed by the USA. In the study period, China strongly increased its production and overspecialization. Apart from China, which had a low normalized citation impact (NCI), almost all countries increased their NCIs; in particular, France's NCI increased from 1.69 to 2.44. As for clinical trials, over 36 856 were opened worldwide during that period. Over 17 000 (46.5%) opened in the USA, which remained the leader during the study period. China ranked second worldwide in terms of the number of open trials in 2015-2019. Results revealed that the 17 cancer localizations versus cancer burden and research effort showed no evident relationship. CONCLUSION: The results may provide a scientific basis for decision making for continued research. Based on bibliometric data, this type of study will aid public health policymaking and lead to a more transparent public fund allocation.

Spatial analysis of the glioblastoma proteome reveals specific molecular signatures and markers of survival.

Molecular heterogeneity is a key feature of glioblastoma that impedes patient stratification and leads to large discrepancies in mean patient survival. Here, we analyze a cohort of 96 glioblastoma patients with survival ranging from a few months to over 4 years. 46 tumors are analyzed by mass spectrometry-based spatially-resolved proteomics guided by mass spectrometry imaging. Integration of protein expression and clinical information highlights three molecular groups associated with immune, neurogenesis, and tumorigenesis signatures with high intra-tumoral heterogeneity. Furthermore, a set of proteins originating from reference and alternative ORFs is found to be statistically significant based on patient survival times. Among these proteins, a 5-protein signature is associated with survival. The expression of these 5 proteins is validated by immunofluorescence on an additional cohort of 50 patients. Overall, our work characterizes distinct molecular regions within glioblastoma tissues based on protein expression, which may help guide glioblastoma prognosis and improve current glioblastoma classification.

Prognostic factors of BRAF V600E colorectal cancer with liver metastases: a retrospective multicentric study.

BACKGROUND: BRAF V600E-mutant colorectal cancers (CRCs) are associated with shorter survival than BRAF wild-type tumors. Therapeutic decision-making for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) harboring this mutation remains difficult due to the scarce literature. The aim was to study a large cohort of BRAF V600E-mutant CRLM patients in order to see if surgery extend overall survival among others prognostic factors. METHODS: BRAF V600E-mutant CRCs diagnosed with liver-only metastases, resected or not, were retrospectively identified between April 2008 and December 2017, in 25 French centers. Clinical, molecular, pathological characteristics and treatment features were collected. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from CRLM diagnosis to death from any cause. Cox proportional hazard models were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Among the 105 patients included, 79 (75%) received chemotherapy, 18 (17%) underwent upfront CRLM surgery, and 8 (8%) received exclusive best supportive care. CRLM surgery was performed in 49 (46.7%) patients. CRLM were mainly synchronous (90%) with bilobar presentation (61%). The median OS was 34 months (range, 28.9-67.3 months) for resected patients and 10.6 (6.7-12.5) months for unresected patients (P < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, primary tumor surgery (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.349; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.164-0.744, P = 0.0064) and CRLM resection (HR = 0.169; 95% CI 0.082-0.348, P < 0.0001) were associated with significantly better OS. CONCLUSIONS: In the era of systemic cytotoxic chemotherapies, liver surgery seems to extend OS in BRAF V600E-mutant CRCs with liver only metastases historical cohort.

Prospective validation of a new imaging scorecard to assess leptomeningeal metastasis: A joint EORTC BTG and RANO effort.

BACKGROUND: Validation of the 2016 RANO MRI scorecard for leptomeningeal metastasis failed for multiple reasons. Accordingly, this joint EORTC Brain Tumor Group and RANO effort sought to prospectively validate a revised MRI scorecard for response assessment in leptomeningeal metastasis. METHODS: Coded paired cerebrospinal MRI of 20 patients with leptomeningeal metastases from solid cancers at baseline and follow-up after treatment and instructions for assessment were provided via the EORTC imaging platform. The Kappa coefficient was used to evaluate the interobserver pairwise agreement. RESULTS: Thirty-five raters participated, including 9 neuroradiologists, 17 neurologists, 4 radiation oncologists, 3 neurosurgeons, and 2 medical oncologists. Among single leptomeningeal metastases-related imaging findings at baseline, the best median concordance was noted for hydrocephalus (Kappa = 0.63), and the worst median concordance for spinal linear enhancing disease (Kappa = 0.46). The median concordance of raters for the overall response assessment was moderate (Kappa = 0.44). Notably, the interobserver agreement for the presence of parenchymal brain metastases at baseline was fair (Kappa = 0.29) and virtually absent for their response to treatment. 394 of 700 ratings (20 patients x 35 raters, 56%) were fully completed. In 308 of 394 fully completed ratings (78%), the overall response assessment perfectly matched the summary interpretation of the single ratings as proposed in the scorecard instructions. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the principle utility of the new scorecard, but also indicates the need for training of MRI assessment with a dedicated reviewer panel in clinical trials. Electronic case report forms with "blocking options" may be required to enforce completeness and quality of scoring.

Continuous Infusion of High Doses of Cefepime in Intensive Care Unit: Assessment of Steady-State Plasma Level and Incidence on Neurotoxicity.

Continuous infusion (CI) with high doses of cefepime is recommended in the empirical antimicrobial regimen of critically ill patients with suspected Gram-negative sepsis. This study aimed to determine factors associated with cefepime overdosing and the incidence of cefepime-induced neurotoxicity (CIN) in these patients. We performed a retrospective study including all patients receiving cefepime treatment between January 2019 and May 2022. The plasma level of cefepime defining overdosing was over 35 mg/L. Neurotoxicity was defined according to strict criteria and correlated with concomitant steady-state concentration of cefepime. Seventy-eight courses of cefepime treatment were analyzed. The mean cefepime plasma level at steady state was 59.8 ± 29.3 mg/L, and overdosing occurred in 80% of patients. Renal failure and a daily dose > 5 g were independently associated with overdosing. CIN was present in 30% of patients. In multivariate analysis, factors associated with CIN were chronic renal failure and a cefepime plasma concentration ≥ 60 mg/L. CIN was not associated with mortality. Overdosing is frequent in patients receiving high doses of cefepime by CI. Steady-state levels are higher than targeted therapeutic pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic objectives. The risk of CIN is important when the plasma concentration is ≥60 mg/L.

Prognostic validation and clinical implications of the EANO ESMO classification of leptomeningeal metastasis from solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: The EANO ESMO guidelines have proposed a classification of leptomeningeal metastases (LM) from solid cancers based on clinical, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cytology presentation. MRI patterns are classified as linear, nodular, both, or neither. Type I LM is defined by positive CSF cytology (confirmed LM) whereas type II LM is defined by typical clinical and MRI signs (probable or possible LM). Here we explored the clinical utility of these LM subtypes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively assembled data from 254 patients with newly diagnosed LM from solid tumors. Survival curves were derived using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by Log-rank test. RESULTS: Median age at LM diagnosis was 56 years. Typical clinical LM features were noted in 225 patients (89%); 13 patients (5%) were clinically asymptomatic. Tumor cells in the CSF were observed in 186 patients (73%) whereas the CSF was equivocal in 24 patients (9.5%) and negative in 44 patients (17.5%). Patients with confirmed LM had inferior outcome compared with patients with probable or possible LM (P = 0.006). Type I patients had inferior outcome than type II patients (P = 0.002). Nodular disease on MRI was a negative prognostic factor in type II LM (P = 0.014), but not in type I LM. Administration of either intrathecal pharmacotherapy (P = 0.020) or systemic pharmacotherapy (P = 0.0004) was associated with improved outcome in type I LM, but not in type II LM. CONCLUSION: The EANO ESMO LM subtypes are highly prognostic and should be considered for stratification and overall design of clinical trials.

Rate of publication in predatory journals by orthopedic surgeons members of the French orthopedic and traumatology society (SOFCOT): A follow-up note.

BACKGROUND: France ranks 9th worldwide for scientific publication in orthopedics and the increase in both the quantity and the quality of its scientific production has been described in detail. On the other hand, publishing by French orthopedic surgeons in predatory journals is more obscure. The journals in question are difficult to identify but are based on an open-access model with article processing charges (APC), except in rare cases that are difficult to specify, as they are not stated at the time of submission. The increase in the number of predatory journals over the last 10 years led us to attempt to assess the rate at which French orthopedic surgeons publish in them, as revealed by investigation of the SIGAPS bibliometric database. HYPOTHESIS: Over the period 2008-2017, the rate of publications by French orthopedic surgeons in predatory journals was less than 5%. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The SIGAPS database contains the detail of publications by French orthopedic surgeons members of the French Society of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology (SoFCOT) and was used to analyse all such articles (journal article, review or editorial) so as to isolate articles with PubMed-Not-MEDLINE status falling in the SIGAPS non-classified (NC) category and to determine the predatory status of the journal using established lists, such as Beall's list or that drawn up by StopPredatoryJournals. In case of difficulty in determining predatory status, we applied the criteria defined by Beall and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). RESULTS: Out of 6056 articles in the SIGAPS database published by French orthopedic surgeons between 2008 and 2017, 323 could be suspected of being published in a predatory journal, but only 33 were so confirmed: i.e., 0.55% of French orthopedic scientific output over the study period. Eleven appeared in journals whose publishers were listed as predatory by Beall, 21 appeared in journals whose publishers had been listed as predatory on Beall's list in 2012 with the dubious editorial practices defined by Beall, and one article appeared in a journal found to be predatory on analysis of its editorial board. More than half of these articles (58%) were subject to APCs averaging $400. DISCUSSION: Despite a strong increase in the number of predatory journals over the last decade, very few French orthopedic surgeons resort to them to publish their work. Difficulty of identification and authors' lack of knowledge about this type of journals may account for some of these submissions. Scientific teams need to check certain criteria before submitting to a journal: short time to publication and low APC should be taken as warning signs, and any demand for payment after acceptance certainly raises the question of the journal's predatory nature. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; retrospective study without control group.

Do bibliometric findings differ between Medline, Google Scholar and Web of Science? Bibliometry of publications after oral presentation to the 2013 and 2014 French Society of Arthroscopy (SFA) Congresses.

INTRODUCTION: Bibliometrics consists in quantitative and qualitative analysis of an individual's or group's communication (volume, visibility), and impacts research funding. There are a number of bibliometric data sources, functioning in different ways and liable to give rise to differing statistics. This point has not been investigated in relation to publication following presentation to a French congress. We therefore conducted a study comparing the main bibliometric instruments, aiming to assess: (1) publication rates following oral presentation to the 2013 and 2014 French Society of Arthroscopy (SFA) Congresses according to the database used, and (2) citation rates for these publications according to database. HYPOTHESIS: Publication and citation rates differ according to database. Material and method All 199 Abstracts of oral presentations to the 2013 and 2014 SFA Congresses were included. Based on author names and key-words, manual search was conducted in the Medline, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases. Publication characteristics (citation rate) were studied using the 3 databases and the French SIGAPS (Système d'Interrogation, de Gestion et d'Analyse des Publications Scientifiques: Scientific Publication Search, Management and Analysis System) website. RESULTS: Publication rates according to Medline and Google Scholar were the same (48.2%: 96 articles for 199 presentations), but significantly lower on Web of Science (44.7%: 89/199; p=0.002). Citation rates differed significantly (p<0.001) between sources, with Google Scholar listing a mean 1.5-3.4-fold more citations per article than the other 2 databases. Citation rates between the 3 databases correlated strongly (r=0.93). DISCUSSION: The example presented in this study illustrates the differences in bibliometrics found between different databases. There was a 4% difference (7/199 articles) in publication rates following oral presentation to an SFA Congress, and even greater differences in citation rates per article, with 1.5-3.4-fold more citations according to Google Scholar. Bibliometric studies need to acknowledge the database(s) being used, which should be as many as possible to enhance exhaustiveness. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; descriptive epidemiologic study.

Publication rate of studies presented at the French Arthroscopic Society Meeting in 2014.

INTRODUCTION: Publication rates for studies reported at French Arthroscopic Society (Société francophone d'arthroscopie, SFA) meetings are not known. A comprehensive search of podium presentations to the 2014 SFA meeting was performed, assessing: (1) publication rate for meeting abstracts, and (2) bibliometric parameters including journal Impact Factor. HYPOTHESIS: The full-text publication rate for abstracts accepted for the 2014 French Arthroscopic Society (SFA) meeting was around 47.1%: i.e., the rate reported for the 2013 meeting of the French Society of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology (SoFCOT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Bibliometric analysis of all abstracts accepted for the 2014 SFA annual meeting was undertaken by the Junior French Arthroscopic Society (SFA Junior), who collated the podium presentations. Reported studies were retrospective in 43 cases (54%) and prospective in 36 (46%). They consisted in clinical studies in 52/79 cases (66%), experimental studies in 4 (5%), cadaver or animal studies in 13 (16.5%), epidemiological studies in 8 (10%), a case report in 1 (1.2%) and a literature review in 1 (1.2%). Thirty-two (40.5%) concerned the shoulder and 31 (39%) the knee. Publication was checked on systematic PubMed-Medline search of authors' names. Articles found on PubMed-Medline were downloaded into the SIGAPS scientific publication search, management and analysis system database. Journal impact factor and SIGAPS category (A to E) were obtained, as were number of citations and h-index. This was a descriptive study, assessing numbers; results were reported as number and percentage. RESULTS: Overall publication rate was 31/79 (39.2%): 20/31 clinical studies (64.5%), 6 cadaver studies (19.4%), 3 epidemiology studies (9.7%), 1 experimental study (3.2%) and 1 literature review (3.2%). Mean 2014 SFA meeting-to-publication time was 18.7 months [range, -2 to 60 months]. Journal SIGAPS categories were A for 4 articles (13.3%), B for 13 (43.3%), C for 3 (10%), D for 9 (30%), with no E category articles but 1 article (3.3%) without SIGAPS category. CONCLUSION: The publication rate for abstracts accepted for report to the 2014 SFA annual meeting was lower than for the 2013 SoFCOT meeting. The high level of the journals in question testified to the quality of the studies reported at the SFA meeting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective study.

Response assessment and outcome of combining immunotherapy and radiosurgery for brain metastasis from malignant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The optimal sequence of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) and assessment of response in patients with brain metastases from melanoma remain challenging. METHODS: We reviewed clinical and neuroimaging data of 62 patients with melanoma, including 26 patients with BRAF-mutant tumours, with newly diagnosed brain metastases treated with ICI alone (n=10, group 1), SRT alone or in combination with other systemic therapies (n=20, group 2) or ICI plus SRT (n=32, group 3). Response was assessed retrospectively using response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) V.1.1, response assessment in neuro-oncology (RANO) and immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria. MRI follow-up from 43 patients was available for central review. RESULTS: Patients treated with ICI alone showed no objective responses and had worse outcome than patients treated with SRT without or with ICI. RECIST, RANO and iRANO criteria were concordant for complete response (CR) and partial response (PR). RANO called progression earlier than RECIST for clinical deterioration without MRI progression in some patients. Progression was called later when using iRANO criteria because of the need for a confirmatory scan. Pseudoprogression was documented in seven patients: three patients in group 2 and four patients in group 3. Radionecrosis was documented in seven patients: two patients in group 2 and five patients in group 3. Regression of non-irradiated lesions was seen neither in two patients treated with SRT alone nor in five patients treated with SRT plus ICI, providing no evidence for rare abscopal effects. CONCLUSIONS: Pseudoprogression is uncommon with ICI alone, suggesting that growing lesions in such patients should trigger an intervention. Pseudoprogression rates were similar after SRT alone or SRT in combination with ICI. Abscopal effects are rare or do not exist. Response assessment criteria should be considered carefully when designing clinical studies for patients with brain metastases who receive SRT.

Full-text publication rate of studies reported as 2013 SoFCOT meeting abstracts.

BACKGROUND: Publication of scientific work, although mandatory to ensure dissemination of novel research findings and obtain further funding, can require considerably more time and effort compared to conference presentations. Several national or scientific societies have determined the publication rate of studies reported at their meetings. The French Society for Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (Société française de chirurgie orthopédique et traumatologique, SoFCOT) has not yet measured this parameter. The objective of this study was to (i) evaluate the full-text publication rate of studies accepted in abstract form for podium presentations or posters at the 2013 SoFCOT meeting and (ii) identify characteristics of abstracts associated with subsequent full-text publication. HYPOTHESIS: The full-text publication rate of abstracts accepted for the 2013 SoFCOT meeting was equal to or greater than the mean reported by national societies, i.e., 44.5%. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Publication rates of the 503 studies reported as abstracts at the 2013 SoFCOT meeting were studied. The time horizon was thus at least 5years. The topic was orthopaedic surgery for 315 (62.6%) abstracts, trauma surgery for 153 (30.4%) abstracts, and fractures in elderly patients - the cross-field theme for that year - for 35 (7.0%) abstracts. Reporting was as a podium presentation for 275 (54.7%) abstracts, an e-poster for 205 (40.8%) abstracts, an instructional course lecture for 20 (4.0%) abstracts, a symposium for 2 (0.4%) abstracts, and a round table for 1 (0.2%) abstract. RESULTS: The full-text publication rate was 35.6% overall and 47.1% (139 publications) for podium presentations. Mean time from podium or poster presentation at the SoFCOT meeting to full-text publication was 1.2±1.5years (range: -2.5 to 6.1years). The full-text publications had 0.8±2.3 (range: -6 to 11) more authors compared to the abstract. They appeared in 54 journals with a mean impact factor of 1.9±1.3 (range: 0.25 to 13.77; median: 1.41; interquartile range: 1.26 to 2.47). Subgroup comparisons showed that full-text publication was more common for prospective than retrospective studies (50.0% versus 30.5%, p<0.0001) and for studies showing a significant difference (48.6% versus 33.0%, p<0.0001). Systematic reviews were more often published in full than were anecdotal case-reports. The full-text publication rate was also higher for studies reported as podium presentations than as e-posters (47.1% versus 17.6%, p<0.0001). Finally, studies of orthopaedic surgery were more often published in full than were studies of trauma surgery (39.7% versus 28.2%, p=0.033). DISCUSSION: The 5-year full-text publication rate of studies reported as abstracts at the 2013 SoFCOT meeting was consistent with previously reported data. The impact factors of the journals in which the studies were published are evidence of the high quality of the information shared at SoFCOT meetings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, systematic retrospective analysis.

Bibliometric evaluation of orthopaedics and traumatology publications from France: 20-year trends (1998-2017) and international positioning.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the scientific publication output for individual countries and medical specialties. The contribution of French authors to the currently expanding volume of publications on orthopaedics and traumatology (OT) is unclear. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR) is an English-language version of a preexisting French journal that was launched in 2009 to increase the dissemination of research done in France. The objective of this study was to use Web of Science (WoS) data from 1998 to 2017 to determine (i) the contribution of OT publications to the total worldwide volume of scientific publications, (ii) the contribution of OT publications from France to the total worldwide volume of OT publications, and (iii) changes over time in the proportion of OT publications from France with special attention to potential effects of the creation of OTSR. HYPOTHESIS: The proportion of OT publications from France increased after 2010-2012, indicating a positive effect of OTSR. MATERIAL AND METHODS: WoS data were used to identify original studies and review articles written by at least one French author, published between 1998 and 2017, and dealing with OT (defined as orthopaedics and/or traumatology in adult and/or paediatric patients). The worldwide volumes of publications in OT and other specialties were compared. Within worldwide OT publications, the proportion from France was determined. Indicators of impact were evaluated during successive 5-year periods. Finally, the position of OT in worldwide research was assessed and OT journals were analysed. RESULTS: Among worldwide scientific medical publications, the proportion dealing with OT increased year on year from 1.93% in 1998 to 2.65% in 2017. Among annual publications from France, the proportion dealing with OT rose similarly, from 1.32% to 2.40%. Over the 20-year study period, France moved from the sixth to the ninth position, chiefly due to a large increase in publications from Asia. However, France remained in third position among European countries and increased its OT production 3-fold between 1998 and 2017. The proportion of OT articles from France that ranked among the top 1% most cited articles increased by 65% from 2008-2012 (20 articles) to 2013-2017 (33 articles), and the proportion in the top 10% increased by 31.8% (211 in 2008-2012 and 278 in 2013-2017). This rate of progression was faster than in any of the other western countries. Between 1998-2011 and 2012-2017, the contribution of French OT to publication output showed a 1.56-fold greater increase than did the contribution of OT to the worldwide volume of scientific medical publications. DISCUSSION: OT publications from France have kept pace with the steady increase seen worldwide over the last 20years. Although the US and UK remain in the lead, and despite the considerable growth in the output of Asian countries, France occupies a prominent position on the international OT scene. The creation of OTSR has elevated the international profile of French OT centres. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective study with no control group.

Publication output of French orthopedic and trauma surgeons: Quantitative and qualitative bibliometric analysis of their scientific production in orthopedics and other medical fields.

INTRODUCTION: Bibliometric analysis is being used more and more in orthopedics and traumatology. However, the quantity and quality of publications authored by French orthopedic and trauma surgeons outside their discipline have never been analyzed, nor has the change in the quality of orthopedics publications. This led us to carry out a bibliometric analysis to answer the following questions: 1) How has the quantity of scientific production by French orthopedists changed over the past 10 years? 2) How has the quality of the overall scientific production by French orthopedists changed over the past 10 years? HYPOTHESIS: From 2008 to 2017, the production of French orthopedists has increased in quantity and quality in orthopedics and other medical fields. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The analysis was performed by cross-referencing the list of SOFCOT (French Society for Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology) members with the French SIGAPS database and the InCites platform. Out of 3979 SOFCOT members, 972 (24%) had authored publications during this period and were included in the analysis. Several indicators were analyzed: number of publications; SIGAPS score (production quality) for the various Web of Science (WoS) categories; number and percentage of publications in the top 1% and top 10% (most highly cited articles worldwide). RESULTS: The "Orthopedics" discipline was still the most prevalent with 68% of all publications identified. The "Surgery" discipline was stable, and the share of publications had increased in five other disciplines: Sports Sciences, Clinical Neurology, Emergency Medicine, Engineering-Biomedical and Material Science-Biomaterials. Of the 727 journals indexed in PubMed in which at least one author is a French orthopedic or trauma surgeon, 79 journals (11%) had at least 10 articles authored by a French orthopedists, making up 4680/6056 published articles (77%) during the study period. The highest SIGAPS score was in the "Orthopedics" discipline followed by "Surgery", and then by "Sport Sciences" with a large number of publications in the SIGAPS B category. Publications in "Orthopedics" category A and B journals increased 14% during this period. When all disciplines are pooled, the share of publications in SIGAPS A, B and C categories increased by 10% from 2008 to 2017. The largest increase in publications for categories A and B and the top 1% and 10% was in "Sports Sciences". DISCUSSION: Over the past 10 years, French orthopedists have continued to increase their scientific production in the orthopedics field and in related fields such as Sport Sciences, Clinical Neurology and Biomedical Engineering. The quality of the scientific production of French orthopedists in their discipline and outside of it has greatly improved, as evidenced by the shift toward SIGAPS A and B journals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective study without control group.

Complementary and alternative medicine use in glioma patients in France.

PURPOSE: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use increases in cancer patients, including adult patients with diffuse gliomas. METHODS: Questionnaires addressing CAM use were distributed to adult patients with gliomas of WHO grades II-IV and ECOG performance score of 0-2 during hospital visits and filled in anonymously. The study was conducted in nine centers in France from May 2017 to May 2018. Descriptive cohort analyses and comparative analyses according to gender, age, WHO grade, and recurrent versus newly diagnosed disease were conducted. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-seven questionnaires were collected; 135 patients (59%) were male. Median age was 48 years, 105 patients (46%) declared having glioblastoma, 99 patients (43%) declared having recurrent disease. Hundred-three patients (45%) had modified their alimentary habits after the glioma diagnosis. At the time of the questionnaire, 100 patients (44%) were on complementary treatment, mainly vitamins and food supplements, and 73 patients (32%) used alternative medicine approaches, mainly magnetism and acupuncture. In total, 154 patients (68%) declared using at least one of these approaches. Expenditures exceeding 100 € per month were reported by users in 14% for modification of alimentary habits, in 25% for complementary treatment, and in 18% for alternative medicines. All approaches were commonly considered as improving quality of life and experienced as efficient, notably those associated with more expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: CAM are frequently used by glioma patients in France. Underlying needs and expectations, as well as potential interactions with tumor-specific treatments, and financial and quality of life burden, should be discussed with patients and caregivers.