Does lower use of academic affiliation by university faculty in top U.S. newspapers contribute to misinformation about abortion?

BACKGROUND: University faculty are considered trusted sources of information to disseminate accurate information to the public that abortion is a common, safe and necessary medical health care service. However, misinformation persists about abortion's alleged dangers, commonality, and medical necessity. METHODS: Systematic review of popular media articles related to abortion, gun control (an equally controversial topic), and cigarette use (a more neutral topic) published in top U.S. newspapers between January 2015 and July 2020 using bivariate analysis and logistic regression to compare disclosure of university affiliation among experts in each topic area. RESULTS: We included 41 abortion, 102 gun control, and 130 smoking articles, which consisted of 304 distinct media mentions of university-affiliated faculty. Articles with smoking and gun control faculty experts had statistically more affiliations mentioned (90%, n = 195 and 88%, n = 159, respectively) than abortion faculty experts (77%, n = 54) (p = 0.02). The probability of faculty disclosing university affiliation was similar between smoking and gun control (p = 0.73), but between smoking and abortion was significantly less (Ave Marginal Effects - 0.13, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Fewer faculty members disclose their university affiliation in top U.S. newspapers when discussing abortion. Lack of academic disclosure may paradoxically make these faculty appear less 'legitimate.' This leads to misinformation, branding abortion as a 'choice,' suggesting it is an unessential medical service. With the recent U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, and subsequent banning of abortion in many U.S. states, faculty will probably be even less likely to disclose their university affiliation in the media than in the past.

Producción científica de la Universidad de Ciencias Médicas de La Habana en revistas estudiantiles cubanas / The scientific production of the University of Medical Sciences of Havana published in student scientific journals

Introducción: Se desconocen las características de la ciencia generada por la Universidad de Ciencias Médicas de La Habana, publicada en revistas científicas estudiantiles nacionales. Los estudios métricos constituyen herramientas idóneas para abordar problemáticas de esta naturaleza. Objetivo: Caracterizar la producción científica de la Universidad de Ciencias Médicas de La Habana en revistas estudiantiles cubanas. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio métrico, descriptivo y transversal en 121 artículos publicados en 12 revistas entre 2017 y 2021. Resultados: Los artículos alcanzaron 149 citas y 65,8 citas corregidas. Hubo un alto índice de Subramanyan (0,76) y un bajo índice de colaboración entre facultades (0,16). Se registraron 207 autores; 2 de ellos fueron líderes. Predominaron los artículos originales (38,8 por ciento). HolCien ostentó el mayor índice de Price (0,87), mientras que 16 de abril y Universidad Médica Pinareña lideraron, respectivamente, en cuanto a número de citas (71) y de citas corregidas (32,5). La Facultad Manuel Fajardo resultó la más productiva (n = 29); y la Facultad Calixto García, la más citada (54 citas). En 2020 se alcanzó el mayor número de publicaciones (n = 51) y de citas (88), probablemente como consecuencia de la COVID-19, que constituyó el principal foco temático emergente de investigación. Conclusiones: La producción se caracterizó por ser baja, mostrar una tendencia al ascenso cuantitativo, ostentar altos índices de coautoría y originalidad científica, y contar con autores líderes. Fue débil en cuanto a la colaboración entre facultades, la publicación en inglés y la actualización de las referencias bibliográficas (AU)

Introduction: The characteristics of the science produced by the University of Medical Sciences of Havana, published in national student scientific journals, are unknown. Metric studies are ideal tools for approaching problem situations of this nature. Objective: To characterize the scientific production of the University of Medical Sciences of Havana published in Cuban student journals. Methods: A metric, descriptive and cross-sectional study was carried out with 121 articles published in twelve journals between 2017 and 2021. Results: The articles reached 149 citations and 65.8 corrected citations. There was a high Subramanyan index (0.76) and a low index of collaboration between schools (0.16). There were 207 reported authors; two of them were leaders. Original articles predominated (38.8 percent). HolCien had the highest Price index (0.87), while the journals 16 de Abril and Universidad Médica Pinareña led, respectively, in number of citations (71) and corrected citations (32.5). The Manuel Fajardo Medical School was the most productive (n=29), while the Calixto García Medical School was the most cited (54 citations). In 2020, the highest number of publications (n=51) and citations (88) was reached, probably as a consequence of COVID-19, which became the main emerging thematic focus of research. Conclusions: The production was characterized by being low, showing a quantitative upward trend, as well as high rates of coauthorship and scientific originality, and by having leading authors. It was weak in terms of collaboration between schools, publication in English and updating of bibliographic references(AU)

[The year 2022 placed in perspective by hospital internists]. / Année 2022 mise en perspective par les internistes hospitaliers.

According to PubMed statistics when writing this review, the year 2022 is expected to mark the first dip in the number of articles published in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic. This review, without any mention to Sars-CoV-2, highlight this transition and addresses many topics in internal medicine: gastroenterology, cardiology, endocrinology, respiratory medicine, infectious diseases and venous access. Each year, the chief residents of the internal medicine ward in Lausanne university hospital (CHUV) in Switzerland meet up to share their readings: here is a selection of ten articles that have caught our attention, summarized and commented for you, which should change our daily practice.

D'après les statistiques PubMed au moment de la rédaction de cette revue, l'année 2022 devrait marquer le premier infléchissement du nombre d'articles publiés en relation avec la pandémie de Covid-19. Cette revue d'articles, sans écho au Sars-CoV-2, souligne cette transition et aborde de nombreux sujets de la médecine interne : gastroentérologie, cardiologie, endocrinologie, pneumologie, infectiologie et accès veineux. Chaque année, les cheffes et chefs de clinique du Service de médecine interne du CHUV se réunissent pour partager leurs lectures : voici une sélection de dix articles ayant retenu notre attention, revus et commentés pour vous, et qui devraient faire évoluer notre pratique quotidienne.

Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas.

Science's changing demographics raise new questions about research team diversity and research outcomes. We study mixed-gender research teams, examining 6.6 million papers published across the medical sciences since 2000 and establishing several core findings. First, the fraction of publications by mixed-gender teams has grown rapidly, yet mixed-gender teams continue to be underrepresented compared to the expectations of a null model. Second, despite their underrepresentation, the publications of mixed-gender teams are substantially more novel and impactful than the publications of same-gender teams of equivalent size. Third, the greater the gender balance on a team, the better the team scores on these performance measures. Fourth, these patterns generalize across medical subfields. Finally, the novelty and impact advantages seen with mixed-gender teams persist when considering numerous controls and potential related features, including fixed effects for the individual researchers, team structures, and network positioning, suggesting that a team's gender balance is an underrecognized yet powerful correlate of novel and impactful scientific discoveries.

Comparison of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 papers.

OBJECTIVE: The need to generate evidence related to COVID-19, the acceleration of publication and peer-review process and the competition between journals may have influenced the quality of COVID-19 papers. Our objective was to compare the characteristics of COVID-19 papers against those of non-COVID-19 papers and identify the variables in which they differ. METHOD: We conducted a journal-matched case-control study. Cases were COVID-19 papers and controls were non-COVID-19 papers published between March 2020 and January 2021. Journals belonging to five different Journal Citations Reports categories were selected. Within each selected journal, a COVID-19 paper (where there was one) and another non-COVID-19 paper were selected. Conditional logistic regression models were fitted. RESULTS: We included 81 COVID-19 and 143 non-COVID-19 papers. Descriptive observational studies and analytical observational studies had, respectively, a 55-fold (odds ratio [OR]: 55.12; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 7.41-409.84) and 19-fold (OR: 19.28; 95%CI: 3.09-120.31) higher likelihood of being COVID-19 papers, respectively, and also a higher probability of having a smaller sample size (OR: 7.15; 95%CI: 2.33-21.94). COVID-19 papers had a higher probability of being cited since their publication (OR: 4.97; 95%CI: 1.63-15.10). CONCLUSIONS: The characteristics of COVID-19 papers differed from those of non-COVID-19 papers published in the first months of the pandemic. In order to ensure the publication of good scientific evidence the quality of COVID-19-papers should be preserved.

Mind the gender gap: COVID-19 lockdown effects on gender differences in preprint submissions.

The gender gap is a well-known problem in academia and, despite its gradual narrowing, recent estimations indicate that it will persist for decades. Short-term descriptive studies suggest that this gap may have actually worsened during the months of confinement following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. In this work, we evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on female and male academics' research productivity using preprint drop-off data. We examine a total of 307,902 unique research articles deposited in 5 major preprint repositories during the period between January and May each year from 2017 to 2020. We find that the proportion of female authors in online repositories steadily increased over time; however, the trend reversed during the confinement and gender parity worsened in two respects. First, the proportion of male authors in preprints increased significantly during lockdown. Second, the proportion of male authors in COVID-19-related articles was significantly higher than that of women. Overall, our results imply that the gender gap in academia suffered an approximately 1-year setback during the strict lockdown months of 2020, and COVID-related research areas suffered an additional 1.5-year setback.

Analysis of 567,758 randomized controlled trials published over 30 years reveals trends in phrases used to discuss results that do not reach statistical significance.

The power of language to modify the reader's perception of interpreting biomedical results cannot be underestimated. Misreporting and misinterpretation are pressing problems in randomized controlled trials (RCT) output. This may be partially related to the statistical significance paradigm used in clinical trials centered around a P value below 0.05 cutoff. Strict use of this P value may lead to strategies of clinical researchers to describe their clinical results with P values approaching but not reaching the threshold to be "almost significant." The question is how phrases expressing nonsignificant results have been reported in RCTs over the past 30 years. To this end, we conducted a quantitative analysis of English full texts containing 567,758 RCTs recorded in PubMed between 1990 and 2020 (81.5% of all published RCTs in PubMed). We determined the exact presence of 505 predefined phrases denoting results that approach but do not cross the line of formal statistical significance (P < 0.05). We modeled temporal trends in phrase data with Bayesian linear regression. Evidence for temporal change was obtained through Bayes factor (BF) analysis. In a randomly sampled subset, the associated P values were manually extracted. We identified 61,741 phrases in 49,134 RCTs indicating almost significant results (8.65%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 8.58% to 8.73%). The overall prevalence of these phrases remained stable over time, with the most prevalent phrases being "marginally significant" (in 7,735 RCTs), "all but significant" (7,015), "a nonsignificant trend" (3,442), "failed to reach statistical significance" (2,578), and "a strong trend" (1,700). The strongest evidence for an increased temporal prevalence was found for "a numerical trend," "a positive trend," "an increasing trend," and "nominally significant." In contrast, the phrases "all but significant," "approaches statistical significance," "did not quite reach statistical significance," "difference was apparent," "failed to reach statistical significance," and "not quite significant" decreased over time. In a random sampled subset of 29,000 phrases, the manually identified and corresponding 11,926 P values, 68,1% ranged between 0.05 and 0.15 (CI: 67. to 69.0; median 0.06). Our results show that RCT reports regularly contain specific phrases describing marginally nonsignificant results to report P values close to but above the dominant 0.05 cutoff. The fact that the prevalence of the phrases remained stable over time indicates that this practice of broadly interpreting P values close to a predefined threshold remains prevalent. To enhance responsible and transparent interpretation of RCT results, researchers, clinicians, reviewers, and editors may reduce the focus on formal statistical significance thresholds and stimulate reporting of P values with corresponding effect sizes and CIs and focus on the clinical relevance of the statistical difference found in RCTs.

Association of Financial Conflicts of Interest With Academic Productivity Among Junior Faculty in Hematology and Oncology

INTRODUCTION: Financial conflicts of interest (COIs) represent a common and complex issue in hematology and oncology. However, little is known about the timing of when COIs begin to develop during a career trajectory. We evaluated self-reported COIs for junior faculty members at top cancer centers to determine how these financial relationships correlated with measures of academic career productivity. METHODS: We analyzed data from 230 assistant professors at 10 academic cancer centers. Financial COIs were identified from the CMS Open Payments (Sunshine Act dollars) database. Self-reported COIs were obtained from American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and American Society of Hematology (ASH) disclosures, and from disclosures in recent publications. Number of publications and h-index (defined as the largest number of publications [h] such that h publications each have at least h citations) were used as measures of academic productivity. Scatter plots and Spearman correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between COIs or Sunshine Act dollars with number of publications and h-index. Linear regression modeling was used to analyze the relationships between COIs or Sunshine Act dollars with number of publications and h-index, adjusting for years of experience since completing fellowship (YSF). RESULTS: A total of 46% of junior faculty had at least 1 COI. Number of COIs reported to ASCO/ASH was positively correlated with total Sunshine Act dollars (Spearman correlation, 0.53; P <.01). The number of COIs and the number of Sunshine Act dollars increased with years in practice (Spearman correlation, 0.38 and 0.25, respectively; P <.01 for both). COIs and Sunshine Act dollars correlated with h-index (Spearman correlation, 0.41 and 0.37, respectively; both P <.01). After adjusting for YSF, linear regression demonstrated that log-transformed h-index and number of publications were associated with Sunshine Act dollars (both P <.01) and COIs (ASCO/ASH) (both P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Financial COIs increased with number of YSF. Measures of academic productivity were positively correlated with COIs (ASCO/ASH) and Sunshine Act dollars. These data suggest that the cultivation of industry relationships is associated with the early academic productivity of junior faculty.

Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic.

Amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, preprints in the biomedical sciences are being posted and accessed at unprecedented rates, drawing widespread attention from the general public, press, and policymakers for the first time. This phenomenon has sharpened long-standing questions about the reliability of information shared prior to journal peer review. Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record? We assessed preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv that had been posted and subsequently published in a journal through April 30, 2020, representing the initial phase of the pandemic response. We utilised a combination of automatic and manual annotations to quantify how an article changed between the preprinted and published version. We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 7.2% of non-COVID-19-related and 17.2% of COVID-19-related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not qualitatively change the conclusions of the paper.

Systematic comparison of published host gene expression signatures for bacterial/viral discrimination.

BACKGROUND: Measuring host gene expression is a promising diagnostic strategy to discriminate bacterial and viral infections. Multiple signatures of varying size, complexity, and target populations have been described. However, there is little information to indicate how the performance of various published signatures compare to one another. METHODS: This systematic comparison of host gene expression signatures evaluated the performance of 28 signatures, validating them in 4589 subjects from 51 publicly available datasets. Thirteen COVID-specific datasets with 1416 subjects were included in a separate analysis. Individual signature performance was evaluated using the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC) value. Overall signature performance was evaluated using median AUCs and accuracies. RESULTS: Signature performance varied widely, with median AUCs ranging from 0.55 to 0.96 for bacterial classification and 0.69-0.97 for viral classification. Signature size varied (1-398 genes), with smaller signatures generally performing more poorly (P < 0.04). Viral infection was easier to diagnose than bacterial infection (84% vs. 79% overall accuracy, respectively; P < .001). Host gene expression classifiers performed more poorly in some pediatric populations (3 months-1 year and 2-11 years) compared to the adult population for both bacterial infection (73% and 70% vs. 82%, respectively; P < .001) and viral infection (80% and 79% vs. 88%, respectively; P < .001). We did not observe classification differences based on illness severity as defined by ICU admission for bacterial or viral infections. The median AUC across all signatures for COVID-19 classification was 0.80 compared to 0.83 for viral classification in the same datasets. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic comparison of 28 host gene expression signatures, we observed differences based on a signature's size and characteristics of the validation population, including age and infection type. However, populations used for signature discovery did not impact performance, underscoring the redundancy among many of these signatures. Furthermore, differential performance in specific populations may only be observable through this type of large-scale validation.

All types of Research and Publication (including in Diabetes) have shown a healthy rising trend from India in the last decade.

India has moved up its publications ranking globally to fourth, and to second amongst Asiatic countries in 2020, in all subject areas. In Diabetes journals the Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research and Reviews is the fastest growing journal with the highest Cite Scoree, currently.

Global cervical cancer research: A scientometric density equalizing mapping and socioeconomic analysis.

Cervical cancer has caused substantial morbidity and mortality for millions of women over the past decades. While enormous progress has been made in diagnosis, prevention and therapy, the disease is still fatal for many women-especially in low-income countries. Since no detailed studies are available on the worldwide research landscape, we here investigated the global scientific output related to this cancer type by an established protocol. The "New Quality and Quantity Indices in Science" platform assessed all relevant cervical cancer research published in the Web of Science since 1900. A detailed analysis was conducted including country-specific research productivity, indicators for scientific quality, and relation of research activity to socioeconomic and epidemiologic figures. Visualization of data was generated by the use of density equalizing map projections. Our approach identified 22,185 articles specifically related to cervical cancer. From a global viewpoint, the United States of America was the dominating country in absolute numbers, being followed by China and Japan. By contrast, the European countries Sweden, Austria, and Norway were positioned first when the research activity was related to the population number. When the scientific productivity was related to annual cervical cancer cases, Scandinavian countries (Finland #1, Sweden #4, Norway #5, Denmark #7), the Alpine countries Austria (#2) and Switzerland (#6), and the Netherlands (#3) were leading the field. Density equalizing mapping visualized that large parts of Africa and South America were almost invisible regarding the global participation in cervical cancer research. Our data documented that worldwide cervical cancer research activity is continuously increasing but is imbalanced from a global viewpoint. Also, the study indicated that global and public health aspects should be strengthened in cervical carcinoma research in order to empower more countries to take part in international research activities.

Identification of human gene research articles with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences.

Nucleotide sequence reagents underpin molecular techniques that have been applied across hundreds of thousands of publications. We have previously reported wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents in human research publications and described a semi-automated screening tool Seek & Blastn to fact-check their claimed status. We applied Seek & Blastn to screen >11,700 publications across five literature corpora, including all original publications in Gene from 2007 to 2018 and all original open-access publications in Oncology Reports from 2014 to 2018. After manually checking Seek & Blastn outputs for >3,400 human research articles, we identified 712 articles across 78 journals that described at least one wrongly identified nucleotide sequence. Verifying the claimed identities of >13,700 sequences highlighted 1,535 wrongly identified sequences, most of which were claimed targeting reagents for the analysis of 365 human protein-coding genes and 120 non-coding RNAs. The 712 problematic articles have received >17,000 citations, including citations by human clinical trials. Given our estimate that approximately one-quarter of problematic articles may misinform the future development of human therapies, urgent measures are required to address unreliable gene research articles.

How Diverse Is Medicinal Chemistry? Insights into Race, Ethnicity, Origin, Gender, and Geography.

A bibliometric study of authors across medicinal chemistry journals over 20 years reveals important trends. Most United States (US) based authors are assigned as racially/ethnically Asian or White; few are Black or Hispanic. More US coauthors have the same race/ethnicity as the corresponding author than expected. The percentage of female authors increased globally, but only slowly. Since 2010, the number of female and male authors declined by 9% and 30%, respectively. Geographically, most authors are male except in Italy where there is gender balance. Gender homophily is observed globally. Geographically, the discipline is now more widely practiced. Article output doubled from 2000 to 2010 with a large increase in articles from China. China excepted, output has since declined. The average number of authors per article rose by a third since 2000. The value of high diversity groups in education, research, and industry cannot be overstated. We recommend diversity is addressed by every medicinal chemist.

An analysis of publication trajectory in plastic surgery across the decades.

The classic canonical publication trajectory for academicians has been well-described by a rapid increase followed by a slower decrease in productivity, leading to a plateau. This trajectory has not been investigated in plastic surgery. In this communication, we aimed to: (1) visualize the publication trajectory per decade for plastic surgeons certified from 1980 to 2010, and (2) characterize and quantify the changes in publishing trends across decades. A list of plastic and reconstructive surgeons board certified between 1980 and 2010 was obtained. Number of publications per year was recorded for each plastic surgeon. The median cumulative publication trajectory was graphed for each decade. Kruskal-Wallis analysis was performed to determine whether there were differences in number of publications across generations. The trajectory for a surgeon from the 1980s follows the established canonical trajectory. Surgeons from the 1990s and 2000s had significantly more publications by board certification than those from the 1980s (7 and 8 vs. 5, respectively, p < 0.01). Surgeons from the 2010s on average achieved 8 publications by board certification. It is clear that the publication arc for plastic surgeons from successive generations has greatly changed. Over the last 40 years, there has been a trend for increasing productivity and involvement in research at a much earlier stage in career, potentially due to increasing demands for matching into residency programs.

A New Bibliometric Index: The Top 100 Most Disruptive and Developmental Publications in Colorectal Surgery Journals.

BACKGROUND: A new bibliometric index called the disruption score was recently proposed to identify innovative and paradigm-changing publications. OBJECTIVE: The goal was to apply the disruption score to the colorectal surgery literature to provide the community with a repository of important research articles. DESIGN: This study is a bibliometric analysis. SETTINGS: The 100 most disruptive and developmental publications in Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, Colorectal Disease, International Journal of Colorectal Disease, and Techniques in Coloproctology were identified from a validated data set of disruption scores and linked with the iCite National Institutes of Health tool to obtain citation counts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the disruption score and citation count. RESULTS: We identified 12,127 articles published in Diseases of the Colon & Rectum (n = 8109), International Journal of Colorectal Disease (n = 1912), Colorectal Disease (n = 1751), and Techniques in Coloproctology (n = 355) between 1954 and 2014. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum had the most articles in the top 100 most disruptive and developmental lists. The disruptive articles were in the top 1% of the disruption score distribution in PubMed and were cited between 1 and 671 times. Being highly cited was weakly correlated with high disruption scores (r = 0.09). Developmental articles had disruption scores that were more strongly correlated with citation count (r = 0.18). LIMITATIONS: This study is subject to the limitations of bibliometric indices, which change over time. DISCUSSION: The disruption score identified insightful and paradigm-changing studies in colorectal surgery. These studies include a wide range of topics and consistently identified editorials and case reports/case series as important research. This bibliometric analysis provides colorectal surgeons with a unique archive of research that can often be overlooked but that may have scholarly significance. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B639.UN NUEVO INDICE BIBLIOMÉTRICO: LAS 100 MAS IMPORTANTES PUBLICACIONES EN INNOVACIONES DESESTABILIZADORAS Y DE DESARROLLO EN LAS REVISTAS DE CIRUGÍA COLORRECTALANTECEDENTES:Un nuevo índice bibliométrico llamado innovación desestabilizadora y de desarrollo ha sido propuesto para identificar publicaciones de vanguardia y que pueden romper paradigmas.OBJETIVO:La meta fué aplicar el índice de desestabilización a la literature en cirugía colorectal para aportar a la comunidad con un acervo importante de artículos de investigación.DISEÑO:Un análisis bibliométrico.PARAMETROS:Las 100 publicaciones mas desestabilizadores y de desarrollo en las revistas: Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, Colorectal Disease, International Journal of Colorectal Disease, y Techniques in Coloproctology se recuperaron de una base de datos validada con puntuaciones de desestabilización y se ligaron con la herramienta iCite NIH para obtener la cuantificación de citas.PRINCIPAL MEDIDA DE RESULTADO:El índice desestabilizador y la cuantificación de citas.RESULTADOS:Se identificaron 12,127 articulos publicados en Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (n = 8,109), International Journal of Colorectal Disease (n = 1,912), Colorectal Disease (n = 1,751), y Techniques in Coloproctology (n = 355) de 1954-2014. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum representó la mayoría de las publicaciones dentro de la lista de los 100 mas desestabilizadores y de desarrollo. Esta literatura desestabilizadora se encuentra en el principal 1% de la distribución de la puntuacón desestabilizadora en PubMed y se citaron de 1 a 671 veces. El ser citado con frecuencia se relacionó vagamente con las puntuaciones de desastibilización (r = 0.09). Los artículos de desarrollo tuvieron puntuaciones de desestabilización que estuvieron muy correlacionados con la cuantificación de las citas (r = 0.18).LIMITACIONES:Las sujetas a las limitaciones de los índices bibliométricos, que se modifican en el tiempo.DISCUSION:La putuación de desestabilicación identificó trabajos perspicaces, pragmáticos y modificadores de paradigmas en cirugía colorrectal. Es de interés identificar que se incluyeron una gran variedad de temas y en forma consistente editoriales, reportes de casos y series de casos que representaron una investigación importante. Este análisis bibliométrico aporta a los cirujanos colorrectales de un acervo de investigación único que puede con frecuencia pasarse por alto, y sin embargo tener una gran importancia académica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B639. (Traducción- Dr. Miguel Esquivel-Herrera).

Impact of international research fellows in neurosurgery: results from a single academic center.

OBJECTIVE: International research fellows have been historically involved in academic neurosurgery in the United States (US). To date, the contribution of international research fellows has been underreported. Herein, the authors aimed to quantify the academic output of international research fellows in the Department of Neurosurgery at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. METHODS: Research fellows with Doctor of Medicine (MD), Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), or MD/PhD degrees from a non-US institution who worked in the Hopkins Department of Neurosurgery for at least 6 months over the past decade (2010-2020) were included in this study. Publications produced during fellowship, number of citations, and journal impact factors (IFs) were analyzed using ANOVA. A survey was sent to collect information on personal background, demographics, and academic activities. RESULTS: Sixty-four international research fellows were included, with 42 (65.6%) having MD degrees, 17 (26.6%) having PhD degrees, and 5 (7.8%) having MD/PhD degrees. During an average 27.9 months of fellowship, 460 publications were produced in 136 unique journals, with 8628 citations and a cumulative journal IF of 1665.73. There was no significant difference in total number of publications, first-author publications, and total citations per person among the different degree holders. Persons holding MD/PhDs had a higher number of citations per publication per person (p = 0.027), whereas those with MDs had higher total IFs per person (p = 0.048). Among the 43 (67.2%) survey responders, 34 (79.1%) had nonimmigrant visas at the start of the fellowship, 16 (37.2%) were self-paid or funded by their country of origin, and 35 (81.4%) had mentored at least one US medical student, nonmedical graduate student, or undergraduate student. CONCLUSIONS: International research fellows at the authors' institution have contributed significantly to academic neurosurgery. Although they have faced major challenges like maintaining nonimmigrant visas, negotiating cultural/language differences, and managing self-sustainability, their scientific productivity has been substantial. Additionally, the majority of fellows have provided reciprocal mentorship to US students.

The Hirsch Index and Self-Citation in Academic Physiatry Among Graduate Medical Education Program Directors.

ABSTRACT: The Hirsch Index is a measure of academic productivity which captures both the quantity and quality of an author's output. A well-accepted bibliometric, the Hirsch Index still may be influenced by self-citation, which has been assessed in other medical and surgical specialties. This study aims to evaluate research output and self-citation in physiatry, establishing a benchmark for the field, in addition to identifying differences between physical medicine and rehabilitation subspecialties. This study identified physical medicine and rehabilitation residency and fellowship program directors and analyzed the number of publications, citations, self-citations, and h-indices. A total of 169 program directors were identified, and the mean number ± SD of publications, citations, and Hirsch Index for the cohort were 16.7 ± 29.5, 348 ± 753, and 5.7 ± 6.7, respectively. When self-citation was excluded, less than 2% of program directors (3 of 169) had changes in Hirsch Index greater than one integer, and none greater than two integers. The Hirsch Index remained unchanged for 90% (152 of 169). Spinal cord injury fellowship directors had significantly higher mean number of publications (28, P = 0.04), mean number of citations (672, P = 0.03), and Hirsch Index (9.2, P < 0.01; 95% confidence interval). Overall, self-citation is infrequent in physical medicine and rehabilitation, and spinal cord injury directors had more robust academic profiles.