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.

The association between research funding status and clinical research papers' citation impact in Japan: A cross-sectional bibliometric study.

Introduction: Studies have not sufficiently clarified the differences in citation impact between funded and non-funded clinical research papers. Hence, this study seeks to evaluate the relation between research funding status and clinical research papers' citation impact in different research fields using multiple evaluation indices. Methods: In this cross-sectional bibliometric study, clinical research papers published by core clinical research hospitals in Japan were compared retrospectively in terms of times cited (TC), category normalized citation impact (CNCI), citation percentile (CP), journal impact factor (JIF), the Software to Identify, Manage, and Analyze Scientific Publications (SIGAPS) category, and whether they were the funded clinical research. The association between research funding status or the SIGAPS category and CNCI ≥ 2 was analyzed using logistic regression analysis. Results: 11 core clinical research hospitals published 553 clinical research papers, of which 120 were non-funded and 433 were funded (public institution-funded and industry-funded). The study found that funded clinical research papers (public institution-funded and industry-funded) had significantly higher TC, CNCI, CP, and JIF than non-funded ones [TC: 8 (3-17) vs. 14 (8-31), p < 0.001; CNCI: 0.53 (0.19-0.97) vs. 0.87 (0.45-1.85), p < 0.001; CP: 51.9 (24.48-70.42) vs. 66.7 (40.53-88.01), p < 0.001; JIF: 2.59 (1.90-3.84) vs. 2.93 (2.09-4.20) p = 0.008], while the proportion of A or B rank clinical research papers of the SIGAPS category was not significantly different between the two groups (30.0 vs. 34.9%, p = 0.318). In the logistic regression analysis, having a CNCI ≥ 2 was significantly associated with research funding (public institution-funded and industry-funded) and publication in A or B rank journals of the SIGAPS category [research funding: Estimate 2.169, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.153-4.083, p = 0.016; SIGAPS category A/B: Estimate 6.126, 95% CI 3.889-9.651, p < 0.001]. Conclusion: Analysis via multiple indicators including CNCI and the SIGAPS category, which allows for a comparison of the papers' citation impact in different research fields, found a positive relation between research funding status and the citation impact of clinical research papers.

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.

Severe secondary peritonitis: impact of inappropriate initial antimicrobial therapy on prognosis and potential carbapenem-sparing.

BACKGROUND: Initiation of antimicrobial therapy (IAT) with broad-spectrum antibiotics is usual in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients with secondary peritonitis. Carbapenems are widely proposed by recent guidelines contrasting with current antibiotic stewardship policies of carbapenem-sparing. However, prognosis of inappropriate IAT remains unclear in these patients and broad-spectrum antibiotics are probably overused. We aimed to assess the role of inappropriate IAT in ICU patients with secondary peritonitis and the use of carbapenems in our IAT regimens. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis during a six-year period including 131 ICU patients with secondary peritonitis. We collected data concerning comorbidities, source and severity of peritonitis, management of IAT, peritoneal samples and outcome. RESULTS: Forty-one patients presented with community acquired peritonitis (CAP) and 90 with postoperative peritonitis (POP). Thirty-seven (28.2%) patients died during ICU stay. IAT was inappropriate in 35 (26.7%) patients. Inappropriate IAT was not associated with reduced survival with respectively 26 (27%) deaths when IAT was adequate and 11 (31.4%) deaths when IAT was inadequate (P=0.87). Inappropriate IAT was not associated with the need of re-operation and duration of ICU stay. Carbapenems were delivered in 29 patients but were only necessary for eight patients without alternative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, inappropriate IAT was not associated with a worse prognosis and carbapenems were overused. Extensive delivery of carbapenems proposed by recent guidelines could be reconsidered in the management of these patients.

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.

Prognostic value of aerobic capacity and exercise oxygen pulse in postaortic dissection patients.

BACKGROUND: Although recommendations encourage daily moderate activities in post aortic dissection, very little data exists regarding cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) to personalize those patient's physical rehabilitation and assess their cardiovascular prognosis. DESIGN: We aimed at testing the prognostic insight of CPET regarding aortic and cardiovascular events by exploring a prospective cohort of patients followed-up after acute aortic dissection. METHODS: Patients referred to our department after an acute (type A or B) aortic dissection were prospectively included in a cohort between September 2012 and October 2017. CPET was performed once optimal blood pressure control was obtained. Clinical follow-up was done after CPET for new aortic event and major cardio-vascular events (MCE) not directly related to the aorta. RESULTS: Among the 165 patients who underwent CPET, no adverse event was observed during exercise testing. Peak oxygen pulse was 1.46(1.22-1.84) mlO2/beat, that is, 97 (83-113) % of its predicted value, suggesting cardiac exercise limitation in a population under beta blockers (92% of the population). During a follow-up of 39(20-51) months from CPET, 42 aortic event recurrences and 22 MCE not related to aorta occurred. Low peak oxygen pulse (<85% of predicted value) was independently predictive of aortic event recurrence, while low peak oxygen uptake (<70% of predicted value) was an independent predictor of MCE occurrence. CONCLUSION: CPET is safe in postaortic dissection patients should be used to not only to personalize exercise rehabilitation, but also to identify those patients with the highest risk for new aortic events and MCE not directly related to aorta.

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.

Differences in author ranking: Development of SIGAPS scoring system for Japanese version.

Although the SIGAPS scoring system is extremely beneficial in evaluating the quality of academic papers and individual research achievement, values for author ranking may vary by country. If a SIGAPS scoring system outside of France is considered, the weighting by author ranking should also be reconsidered.

Trends in Worldwide Research in Hypertension Over the Period 1999-2018: A Bibliometric Study.

Bibliometric analysis, a powerful tool for assessing trends in research output, was employed to analyze the evolution of hypertension research over a 20-year period. The analysis was based on 90 308 original articles and a citation analysis. The use of bibliometric as a potential tool for shaping research policy at the institution or country level was also explored. The number of published hypertension articles increased by 43.5% over the 20-year period. By contrast, the increase in the number of articles in all medical disciplines was 96%, and in the cardiovascular field was 64%. Of the 6 countries producing the largest number of articles, the United States was consistently the major contributor. There was a slight decrease from Japan, a slight increase from the United Kingdom, and relatively stable output from Germany and Italy over the study period. Output from China showed the strongest growth. The trends in Specialization Index and Category Normalized Citation Impact varied by country. In Russia, Poland, and Brazil, increases in output were greater for hypertension research than for medical research in general. The United Kingdom and Denmark had greater hypertension research output than the other countries. VOSviewer analysis showed an intensification of collaborations between countries and a shift, over 10 years, from 3 clusters towards 2 clusters. Such analysis may help to shape research policy at the country level and can be similarly performed for institutions. Historical changes in hypertension research can be monitored over decades if the same channels continue to be used for communication of scientific results.

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.