ABSTRACT
Numerous innovations within the field of plastic surgery have been developed in Israel over the last few decades. Many of these therapeutic devices and techniques have been established globally with demonstrable efficacy and respectable safety profiles. This article offers an overview of recent Israeli cutting-edge medical therapeutic solutions contributing to the global practice of plastic surgery.
ABSTRACT
The h-index has been proven in the US and Canada to be a solid tool to assess the quality and impact of individual scientific work in the field of plastic surgery. M-quotient is an additional metric that mitigates the h-index's inherent bias toward more seasoned researchers. The objective of this study was evaluating the relationship between h-index and M-quotient and research productivity among plastic surgeons in the state of Israel. METHODS: A list of all Israeli board-certified plastic surgeons registered in the Israeli Society of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery was obtained from the organization's website. Relevant demographic and academic factors of each surgeon were retrieved. The Scopus database was queried to determine each surgeon's h-index and M-quotient, among other bibliometric parameters. RESULTS: Our study included 173 plastic surgeons, 90% of whom were men. In total, 49.7% were working in academically affiliated hospitals; 14.4% of the surgeons had an academic rank. The mean h-index was 6.13; mean M-quotient was 0.27. Statistical analysis demonstrated a positive correlation between total number of publications (P < 0.0001), total number of citations (P < 0.0001), the surgeon's seniority (P < 0.0001), academic rank (P = 0.007), appointed as past/present plastic surgery department director (P < 0.0001), and working in an academic affiliated hospital (P < 0.025). The same parameters were found to have a positive correlation with M-quotient. CONCLUSIONS: The h-index is an effective measure to compare plastic surgeons' research productivity in Israel. M-quotient is an ancillary tool for the assessment of research productivity among plastic surgeons, with the advent of neutralizing the surgeon's seniority.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) studies are essential in the assessment of surgical procedures in plastic surgery. One accepted and validated questionnaire is the BREAST-Q. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the quality of PRO studies in plastic surgery utilizing the BREAST-Q questionnaire. METHODS: This study involved 2 steps: (1) a systematic review of 23 key criteria assessing the quality of survey research in studies utilizing the BREAST-Q that were published between 2015 and 2018; (2) a review of current guidance for survey research in journals related to plastic surgery and breast surgery which were included in the systematic review. RESULTS: Seventy-nine studies were included in the systematic review. Many key criteria were poorly reported: 51.9% of the studies did not provide a defined response rate and almost 90% did not provide a method for analysis of nonresponse error; 67.1% lacked a description of the sample's representativeness of the population of interest, and 82.3% did not present a sample size calculation. The methods used to analyze data were not described in 11.4% of the papers; in 27.8% the data analysis presented could not allow replication of the results. Of the 16 journals in the fields of plastic surgery and breast surgery for which the "instructions to authors" were reviewed, 15 (93.7%) did not provide any guidance for survey reporting. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of key criteria are underreported by authors publishing their survey research in peer-reviewed journals in the fields of plastic and breast surgery. There is an urgent need to construct well-developed reporting guidelines for survey research in plastic surgery, and particularly in breast surgery.
