Financial Relationships in General Surgery Education: Recent Trends in Industry Payments to General Surgery Residency Leadership.

INTRODUCTION: Residency programs and their directors frequently receive funding from industry payers. Both general surgery residency program directors (PDs) and assistant program directors (APDs) receive industry funding for various reasons, including educational advancement. This study investigates recent trends in industry payments to both PDs and APDs to better understand the financial relationships among leaders in residency education. METHODS: We compared industry payments to general surgery residency PDs and APDs from 2019 to 2021 utilizing the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) open payments database. In addition, secondary analyses were performed among PDs to assess differences based on gender, practicing surgical specialty, and geographical region. RESULTS: During the study period (2019-2021), PDs received payments amounting to 2,882,821 USD. PDs were found to receive more funding than APDs, with each receiving average funding of 10,045 vs. 323 USD (p < 0.01), respectively, over the study period. There was a significant decrease in total payments from 2019 to 2020 (1,512,190 vs. 868,811 USD; p < 0.01). Total payments made in 2021 were similar compared to 2020 (905,836 vs. 868,811 USD; p = 0.1). We found that male PDs received significantly more in-industry payments when compared to female PDs (11,702 USD per PD vs. 3971 USD per PD, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This study presents initial data that residency program leadership has robust biomedical industry relationships, and further research is warranted to investigate the impacts of these payments on program resources, educational opportunities for residents, and program outcomes. Male PDs received significantly more industry payments when compared to female PDs. Leaders in the surgical training community must cautiously ensure that these industry relationships are appropriately navigated.

Critical Appraisal of the Quality of Publications in Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Research Using the American College of Surgeons NSQIP Database.

BACKGROUND: The use of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) NSQIP has increased in hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery (HPB) research as it provides access to high-quality surgical outcome data on a national scale. Using the ACS NSQIP database, this study examined the methodologic reporting of HPB publications. STUDY DESIGN: Web of Science core collection (all editions) was queried for all HPB studies using the ACS NSQIP database published between 2004 and 2022. In addition, a critical appraisal was performed using the JAMA Surgery checklist, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement, and Reporting of Studies Conducted Using Observational Routinely-Collected Health Data (RECORD) statement. RESULTS: In total, 276 studies were included in the analysis. The median scores for the JAMA Surgery checklist, RECORD statement, and STROBE statement were 4 of 7 (interquartile range [IQR] 3 to 5), 3 of 10 (IQR 2 to 4), and 15 of 21 (IQR 13 to 17), respectively. The criteria with the highest rates of nonadherence were discussing competing risks, clear definitions of inclusion and exclusion criteria, unadjusted and adjusted outcomes, provision of supplementary data, and performing subgroup analyses. Additionally, when examining checklist fulfillment of hepatobiliary studies and pancreatic studies separately, pancreatic studies demonstrated significantly greater fulfillment of the STROBE statement checklist items. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfactory reporting of methodology is present among HPB studies utilizing the ACS NSQIP database, with multiple opportunities for improvement. Areas for improved adherence include discussing competing risks, providing supplementary information, and performing appropriate subgroup analysis. Given the increasing role of large-scale databases in surgical research, enhanced commitment to reporting guidelines may advance HPB research and ensure quality reporting.