Search

Background Traditional measures of evaluating scholarly output do not capture the impact social media can provide in disseminating and promoting research. We sought to better understand the level of online attention that high-quality hand research received. Methods Scientific manuscripts published from 2017 in Journal of Hand Surgery (American Volume) ( JHS-A), Journal of Hand Surgery ( European Volume) ( JHS-E), and HAND were recorded. Manuscript characteristics were determined, including the number of citations. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), a measure of a manuscript’s online attention and impact, was determined, as well as Twitter mentions, Facebook mentions, and news outlet mentions. Spearman rho (ρ) correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the relationship between the number of citations and AAS. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to determine which manuscript factors were associated with AAS. Results A total of 323 manuscripts were identified. There was a weak positive correlation between the number of citations and AAS; however, this relationship did not exist for each individual journal. Publication in HAND and JHS-E were associated with lower average manuscript AAS when using JHS-A as the reference group. Two additional factors were also associated with increased manuscript AAS: (1) being a clinical study focused on a specific upper extremity anatomical location; and (2) increasing number of institutions on a study. Conclusions Publication in HAND and JHS-E were associated with lower manuscript AAS when using JHS-A as the reference group, suggesting that HAND and JHS-E have room for improvement in using social media to share their high-quality hand surgery scientific articles.

To compare the quantity and quality of publications during the residency training period in Cardiology, Intensive Care Medicine, Internal Medicine and Medical Oncology in Spain.A retrospective cohort study of residents from 4 specialties lasting 5 years (2014-2019). The number and type of publications indexed in PubMed®, the names of the journals and their bibliometric indexes (impact factor and quartiles), and author's positions were evaluated.The 649 residents included in the study generated 801 publications (publication/resident ratio 1.23). Cardiology residents published significantly more (ratio 2.57) and Intensive Care Medicine residents less (ratio 0.42) than the remaining specialties (Internal Medicine, ratio 1.06; Medical Oncology, ratio 0.76; p .001). Overall, only 44.5% of residents participated in a publication, with 27.6% participating in an original article; this latter percentage increased significantly among cardiologists (47.7%; p .001). The predominant types of publications were original articles (47.9%) and clinical reports (36.8%). The proportion of publications in first quartile journals was higher for Cardiology residents (44.6% of total). The resident was the first or last author in only one-third of the publications. Scientific productivity was related to specialty, but not to gender or the size of the hospital in which the residency training occurred.Intensive Care Medicine, Internal Medicine and Medical Oncology residents publish insufficiently, while the scientific production from Cardiology residents could be considered acceptable.

Breast reconstruction is an important component of comprehensive breast cancer care. Although reconstructive plans require multidisciplinary clinical-decision making, research in cross-discipline collaborations is often limited. This study aims to evaluate multidisciplinary involvement in breast reconstruction outcomes research.A systematic review of breast reconstruction literature published from 2000 to 2019 using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and PubMed databases was conducted. English language articles published in North America or Europe with n ≥ 12 nonpediatric patients were included. Articles concerning procedures not performed in the context of breast cancer care or articles that did not evaluate at least one outcome, diagnostic test, or risk factor were excluded. Authors' affiliations were used to define multidisciplinary involvement. Quality of research was evaluated using the level of evidence, journal impact factor (IF), and altmetrics.Of the 1679 articles screened, 784 met the stated eligibility criteria. Only half (50.6%) of these articles involved an author outside the discipline of plastic surgery. Compared to nonmultidisciplinary studies, multidisciplinary studies were more likely to be designated with a higher level of evidence (I or II) (p0.001), published in journals with higher IF (p0.05), have higher usage (p = 0.03), and mentions (p = 0.02). There was no difference in citations, captures, and social media posts (p0.05).Breast reconstruction outcomes research often fails to offer author collaborations from nonplastic surgery disciplines. Multidisciplinary involvement in breast cancer care research is strongly recommended to improve the quality and impact of clinical studies in breast reconstruction.

The bibliometric analysis was conducted to evaluate the publication characteristics of Journal of Dental Sciences (JDS) from ScienceDirect Online between 2009 and 2020. The most common published article type in JDS was original articles. The top four highest number of published articles were related to oral and maxillofacial surgery, periodontology, endodontology, and oral pathology. The most productive geographic region for articles was Asia. Taiwan ranked in the highest country in terms of successful publication in JDS. The impact factor of JDS ranged from 0.107 in 2009 to 2.080 in 2020. As compared with years between 2009 and 2014, there was a significant increase in impact factor during 2015–2020 (P = 0.026). By this bibliometric analysis, JDS needs to attract more audience outside the Asia to gain the higher international influence.

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Zu den Leistungskriterien einer Universitätsklinik gehören ihre Publikationsaktivitäten. Ziel der vorliegenden bibliometrischen Untersuchung war es, die Publikationsaktivitäten deutscher unfallchirurgischer Universitätskliniken in einem Benchmarking vergleichend darzustellen. Material und Methodik Die Publikationsleistung der Führungsmannschaften, bestehend aus Chef- und Oberärzten, Sektions- und Bereichsleitern von 39 deutschen unfallchirurgischen Universitätskliniken wurde über 10 Jahre (01.01.2010 bis 31.12.2019) erfasst. Berücksichtigt wurden alle Publikationen, die in PubMed gelistet waren und bei denen die entsprechenden Personen Erst- oder Letztautor waren. Zusätzlich wurde der Impact-Faktor (IF) bestimmt. Ergebnisse Insgesamt wurden 4438 Veröffentlichungen erfasst, publiziert von 381 Chirurgen. Der Anteil der publizierenden Mitarbeiter betrug 72,8 %. Publiziert wurde in 545 Journalen. Der durchschnittliche IF aller Publikationen war 1,81. Die Publikationsaktivitäten der Kliniken zeigten eine hohe Streubreite, dies galt sowohl für die Publikationsanzahl als auch für die generierten IF des einzelnen Mitarbeiters. Die Publikationsaktivität reichte von durchschnittlich 16,4 Publikationen pro Mitarbeiter in der bestplatzierten Klinik bis 1,5 Publikationen bei der letztplatzierten. Gleiches ergab die Summe der IF. In der nach diesem Maßstab bestplatzierten Klinik erzielte der einzelne Mitarbeiter durchschnittlich kumuliert 42,1 IF verglichen mit 1,7 IF bei der letztplatzierten. Schlussfolgerung Die Publikationsleistung deutscher unfallchirurgischer Universitätskliniken zeigt eine hohe Varianz, wie dies auch bei anderen Disziplinen gefunden wurde. Die Ursachen müssen offen bleiben, eine unterschiedliche Forschungsmotivation ist aber nicht auszuschließen.

BACKGROUND Academic conferences such as the annual Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA) meeting provide opportunities to present up-to-date scientific work that can influence clinical decision making. This study reviewed 4 years of abstracts presented at POSNA to assess trends in poster and podium presentation publication rates and associated metrics and the impact of academic presentations on the pediatric orthopaedic literature. METHODS All abstracts presented at POSNA annual meetings from 2013 to 2016 were analyzed for presentation type, subspeciality, level of evidence, study design, peer-reviewed publication within 4 years of presentation, 1-year publication rates, journal impact factors, number of authors, and citations of the final publication. χ2, analysis of variance, and t tests were conducted to measure independence of variables. Statistical significance was indicated at P

Background As reported by the World Health Organization, adolescent pregnancy is a major public health concern given its impact on the life of mothers and their family members. In this study we investigated possible cause-effect relations between teenage pregnancy and school dropout, and other attributes that gravitate around them, using the Bayesian network approach. Methods We used a database prepared by the Adolescent House Project and invited experts in the areas of Health, Education and Social Assistance to answer a survey containing questions aimed at detecting possible causal relationships. To perform the statistical analysis and the numerical simulations we employed the language and formalism of Bayesian networks. Results The analysis indicated a strong cause-effect relation between teenage pregnancy and school dropout, bolstered by economic vulnerability. We were able to identify the profile of the female teenager who drops out from school: white girls older than 15 years who got pregnant at least once, are not working to generate an income, and who belong to the group where the family income is less than or equal to US$780 per month. Also we detected the “maternal impact factor", i.e., the effect caused by whether or not the mothers of the teenagers have experienced teenage pregnancy. Conclusion There are many factors that lead teenagers to drop out of school; we confirmed not only the commonsense notion that pregnancy of the teenager is a major factor but found that a history of teenage pregnancy on the part of the mother is a major factor. Moreover, Bayesian networks emerged as an interesting mathematical framework to perform the statistical analysis.

PURPOSE: The citation count of a scientific article is considered as the recognition it received from this field. The purpose of this bibliometric analysis was to identify the top 100 most-cited scientific articles in penile surgical reconstruction. METHODS: The Web of Science database was used to extract the top 100 most-cited articles. Individual articles were reviewed to identify the authorship, published journal, journal impact factor (IF), primary disease, article type, institution and country of origin, and year of publication. RESULTS: The top 100 most-cited articles were published between 1947 and 2013. The number of citations ranged from 23 to 233. Journal of Urology contributed the most articles (n = 36). Articles with a high level of evidence like prospective analysis (n = 5), systematic review and meta-analysis (n = 2), and guideline (n = 1) were all published after 2000. The average citation per year of articles published in high-IF journals was significantly higher than that of other articles (p = 0.0129). There was a positive linear correlation between citation count per year and publication year (r2 = 0.26, p < 0.001). Among the top 100 articles, 74 articles were interlinked via citation of each other. The major topic of co-citation network was the application of flaps in penile reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of top 100 most-cited articles facilitates the comprehensive recognition of current focus in the field of penile surgical reconstruction, which is the exploration of flaps and development of new techniques in penile reconstruction. In the future, more attention should be paid to evidence-based medicine to provide high-level evidence for research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

PRECIS Characteristics of the most mentioned glaucoma articles on the internet were analyzed, allowing a better understanding of the dissemination of glaucoma research to the general public. PURPOSE To determine the 100 most mentioned articles on the internet in the field of glaucoma and analyze their characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS We identified the top 100 glaucoma articles with the highest Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), an automatically calculated metric for monitoring social media. Each article was evaluated for several characteristics including year of publication, title, journal name, journal impact factor (IF), article topic, article type, affiliation, and online mentions (news, blog, policy, Twitter, Facebook, etc). Correlation analysis was conducted for AAS with these characteristics. RESULTS The selected 100 articles came from 44 journals with more than half (56%) published in ophthalmology-specific journals. There was no significant correlation between IF and number of articles in a specific journal or AAS (P>0.1), but the number of articles in the top 100 was higher for ophthalmology journals with a higher IF (P

Publications are an important component of academic careers. We investigated the financial costs to authors for submitting and publishing manuscripts in gastroenterology (GI) journals in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and elsewhere. This was a cross-sectional study carried out from 11/1/2020 to 12/31/2020. We used the SCImago Journal and Country Rankings site to compile a list of gastroenterology and hepatology journals to analyze. We gathered information on the journals’ Hirsch indices (h indices), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Impact Factor (IF), and base countries as of 2019, processing and publication fees, open access fees, time to first decision, and time from acceptance to publication. We used t-testing and linear regression modeling to evaluate the effect of geography and journal quality metrics on processing fees and times. We analyzed 97 GI journals, of which 51/97 (52.6%) were based in the US/UK while the other 46/97 (47.4%) were based elsewhere. The mean IF (5.67 vs 3.53, p = 0.08), h index (90.5 vs 41.8, p

Background The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for network meta-analysis (NMA) published in 2015 promotes comprehensive reporting in published systematic reviews with NMA. PRISMA-NMA includes 32 items: 27 core items as indicated in the 2009 PRISMA Statement and five items specific to the reporting of NMAs. Although NMA reporting is improving, it is unclear whether PRISMA-NMA has accelerated this improvement. We aimed to investigate the impact of PRISMA-NMA and highlight key items that require attention and improvement. Methods We updated our previous collection of NMAs with articles published between April 2015 and July 2018. We assessed the completeness of reporting for each NMA, including main manuscript and online supplements, using the PRISMA-NMA checklist. The PRISMA-NMA checklist originally includes 32 total items (i.e. a 32-point scale original PRISMA-NMA score). We also prepared a modified version of the PRISMA-NMA checklist with 49 items to evaluate separately at a more granular level all multiple-content items (i.e. a 49-point scale modified PRISMA-NMA score). We compared average reporting scores of articles published until and after 2015. Results In the 1144 included NMAs the mean modified PRISMA-NMA score was 32.1 (95% CI 31.8–32.4) of a possible 49-excellence-score. For 1-year increase, the mean modified score increased by 0.96 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.59) for 389 NMAs published until 2015 and by 0.53 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.04) for 755 NMAs published after 2015. The mean modified PRISMA-NMA score for NMAs published after 2015 was higher by 0.81 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.39) compared to before 2015 when adjusting for journal impact factor, type of review, funding, and treatment category. Description of summary effect sizes to be used, presentation of individual study data, sources of funding for the systematic review, and role of funders dropped in frequency after 2015 by 6–16%. Conclusions NMAs published after 2015 more frequently reported the five items associated with NMA compared to those published until 2015. However, improvement in reporting after 2015 is compatible with that observed on a yearly basis until 2015, and hence, it could not be attributed solely to the publication of the PRISMA-NMA.

BACKGROUND The Pediatric Trauma Society (PTS) is a multidisciplinary organization, with scientific presentations at its annual meeting addressing trauma care from prehospital through rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the scholarly areas of focus of presentations at the annual meeting over the society's first 5 years and evaluate research dissemination. METHODS Data were collected on abstracts presented between 2014 and 2018, including titles, authors, and abstract classification. PubMed and Google Scholar searches identified abstracts that resulted in publications. Journal impact factors were identified. RESULTS Over 5 years, 491 of 635 (77.3%) abstracts were accepted. The number of submitted and accepted abstracts increased, but the acceptance rate was stable (range = 72.1%-81.2%, p = NS [nonsignificant]). The most frequently accepted categories included "Epidemiology," "Abdominal or Thoracic Trauma," and "Neurosurgery or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)," whereas "Trauma Nursing" and "Quality Improvement" were less common. Among the 2014-2016 abstracts, 55.4% of podium and 24.3% of poster presentations were published. Abstracts categorized as "Epidemiology," "Education & Injury Prevention," and "Neurosurgery or TBI" were commonly presented but uncommonly published. The median journal impact factor of publications was 2.1 and 2.0 for podium and poster presentations, respectively (ranging from 0.11 to 10.25). CONCLUSION Most of the scholarly effort presented at the PTS remains unpublished. Published work is mainly in low-impact factor journals. Mentorship in the publication process and encouragement of multidisciplinary collaboration within the society are needed to address limitations in the number and potential impact of the scientific content of the annual meeting. This type of analysis is relevant not only to the PTS but also to any professional society seeking to improve its impact.

Purpose: Journal impact factor (IF) is often used to measure research quality and importance. We assessed trial factors associated with the publication of cancer trials in journals with higher IF and publications receiving higher citations. Materials and Methods: Cancer-specific phase III RCTs were screened through https://clinicaltrials.gov. We identified trials with published primary endpoints, along with their corresponding journal IF and relative citation ratio (RCR). Results: Seven-hundred ninety manuscripts were included in our study. Trials that met their primary endpoint were more commonly published in journals with higher IF (Median IF: positive trials 35.4 vs. negative trials 26.3, P < 0.001). Furthermore, trials that led to subsequent FDA drug approvals were also published in journals with higher IF (Median IF: 59.1 vs. 26.3 in trials not leading to FDA approvals, P < 0.001). When analyzing RCR, trial positivity (meeting primary endpoint) was not associated with increased citations on multivariable analysis (P = 0.56). Lastly, publications of trials leading to FDA approvals (P < 0.001), and publications of trials in journals with higher IF (P < 0.001) were associated with increased RCR. Conclusions: Positive trials are commonly published in journals with high IF, but do not necessarily lead to increased citations. Moreover, trials published in journals with higher IF are more likely to receive increased citations.

Background Presentation at academic conferences is an important marker of research productivity. However, not all accepted abstracts progress to full publication, and there is anecdotal evidence suggesting an imbalance in sex and ethnicity amongst presenters. There is a lack of data evaluating the outcome of prize presentation sessions at academic surgical conferences in the UK. This study aimed to analyse the outcomes and demographics from presentations at prize sessions at two prestigious UK surgical conferences. Methods This retrospective observational study compared data on all Moynihan (Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland) and Patey (Surgical Research Society) prize presentations from 2000 to 2020. The primary outcome was rate of publication. Secondary outcomes included demographic differences in sex and ethnicity, publication according to prize outcome, academic affiliation, time to publication, and journal impact factor. Results Some 442 accepted abstracts were identified over the 21-year period, with 71.0% from the Moynihan sessions and 79.3% from the Patey sessions leading to full publications, with a median time to publication of 448 days (IQR 179–859) in journals with relatively high impact factors (median 5.00; IQR 3.15–6.36). Of the 442 prize presenters, 85 (19.2%) were female. The majority of the presenters were White males (211, 47.7%), followed by Asian males (112, 25.3%). However, there was a continuously increasing overall trend of female presenters from 2000 to 2020 (P = 0.019). Conclusion Publication rates from the two prize sessions were high, with presenters publishing in journals with high impact factors. There, however, was a disparity in sex and ethnicity amongst presenters.

Several different reporting biases cited in scientific literature have raised concerns about the overestimation of effects and the subsequent potential impact on the practice of evidence-based medicine and human health. Up to 7-8% of the population experiences neuropathic pain, and established treatment guidelines are based predominately on published, clinical trial results. Therefore, we examined published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line drugs for neuropathic pain and assessed the relative proportions with statistically significant (i.e., positive) and non-significant (i.e., negative) results and their rates of citation. We determined the relationships between reported study outcome and the frequency of their citations with journal impact factor, sample size, time to publication after study completion, and study quality metrics. We also examined the association of study outcome with maximum study drug dosage and conflict of interest. We found that of 107 published RCTs, 68.2% reported a statistically significant outcome regarding drug efficacy for chronic peripheral and central neuropathic pain. Positive studies were cited nearly twice as often as negative studies in the literature (P=0.01), despite similar study sample size, quality metrics, and publication in journals with similar impact factors. The time to publication, journal impact factor, and conflict of interest did not differ statistically between positive and negative studies. Our observations that negative and positive RCTs were published in journals with similar impact at comparable time-lags after study completion are encouraging. However, the citation bias for positive studies could affect the validity and generalization of conclusions in literature and potentially influence clinical practice.

Background The incidence of retractions has been increasing steadily, in direct proportion to the volume of scientific literature. Retraction of published articles depends on the visibility of journals and on postpublication scrutiny of published articles by peers. The possibility thus exists that not all compromised (“retractable”) articles are detected and retracted from the less-visible journals. The proportion of “retractable” articles and its converse, the proportion of published articles in each journal that are likely to be “true” (PTP), have not been estimated hitherto. Methods Three journal sets were created: pure neurosurgery journals (NS-P), the neurosurgery component of multidisciplinary journals (NS-MD), and high-impact clinical journals (HICJs). We described a new metric (the retraction gap [RGap]), defined as the proportion of retractable articles in journals that have not been retracted. We computed the expected number of retractable articles, RGap, and PTP for each journal, and compared these metrics across groups. Results Fifty-three NS-P journals, 10 NS-MD journals, and 63 HICJs were included in the analysis. The estimated number of retractable articles was 31 times the actual number of retractions in NS-P journals, 6 times higher in the NS-MD journals, and 26 times higher for the HICJs. The RGap was 96.7% for the NS-P group, 83.5% for the NS-MD group, and 96.2% for the HICJs. The PTP was 99.3% in the NS-P group, 99.2% in the NS-MD group, and 98.6% in the HICJs. Conclusions Neurosurgery as a discipline had a higher RGap but also a higher PTP than the other 2 groups.

PURPOSE To assess for a positive results bias in recently published randomized controlled trials in the field of vitreoretinal disease. METHODS A bibliometric analysis was conducted examining randomized controlled trials published in the field of retina between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019. Studies were classified as positive result or negative result based on the statistical significance of their primary outcome. Publication date and sample size were documented. These variables were compared against Journal Citation Reports Impact Factor in the year of publication. RESULTS Two hundred and eighty-eight randomized controlled trials from 64 unique journals were included and analyzed. One hundred and eighty-five (64.2%) studies were classified as positive result, and 103 (35.8%) studies were classified as negative result. There was no association between impact factor and positive result. Studies classified as positive result had larger sample sizes, and higher sample size was associated with higher impact factor. CONCLUSION These results do not support the presence of a recent positive results bias in retina randomized controlled trials. This is reassuring, although several factors could be contributing to this finding including studies that were conducted but never submitted and selective reporting of outcomes. Thus, it will be important to remain cognizant of potential publication biases moving forward.

Purpose The publication activity of 38 German general/visceral surgery university departments, documented by first or last authorship from staff surgeons (chief and consultants), was evaluated. Methods The observation period extended from 2007 to 2017 and all PubMed-listed publications were considered. Impact factor (IF) was evaluated through the publishing journal’s 5-year IF in 2016, as was the IF for each individual publication. Ranking was expressed in quartiles. Results The staff surgeons of the 38 departments comprised 442 surgeons, of which only 351 (79.4%) were active as first or last authors. Four thousand six hundred and ninety-nine publications published in 702 journals were recorded. The four leading departments in publication number published as much as the last 20 departments (1330 vs. 1336 publications, respectively). The mean of the first (most active) department quartile was 19.6 publications, the second 15.4, the third 11.0, and the last quartile 7.6 per publishing surgeon. The total cumulative impact factor was 14,130. When examining the mean number of publications per publishing surgeons per the 10 year period, the mean of the first quartile was 57.9 cumulative IF, the second 45.0, the third 29.5, and the fourth quartile 17.1. With 352 (7.5%) publications, the most frequently used journal was Chirurg, followed by Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery with 274 (5.8%) publications. Pancreas-related topics led in terms of publication number and IF generated per individual publication. Conclusion A significant difference in publication performance of individual departments was apparent that cannot be explained by staff number. This indicates that there are as yet unknown factors responsible for minor publication activity in many university departments.

Background The scientific rigor of the abstracts presented at the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) annual meeting has not been recently evaluated. In this study, we sought to determine the rate at which abstracts presented at the 2017 and 2018 ASBrS meetings were published in peer-reviewed journals, and compared the rates with breast abstracts presented at the 2018 Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) meeting. Methods Abstracts from the 2017 and 2018 ASBrS and 2018 SSO conferences were searched in PubMed for published manuscripts using the abstract title and/or first or last author. Results In 2017, 21.6% of the 268 abstracts presented at the ASBrS conference resulted in full publication, compared with 36.6% of the 273 abstracts presented at the 2018 ASBrS conference, resulting in a significant difference in the publication rate (p

Introduction Female authors are underrepresented in cardiology journals, although prior work suggested improvement in reducing disparities over time. Early in the recent COVID-19 pandemic, female authorship continued to lag that of their male counterparts despite a surge in publications. The cumulative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on authorship gender disparities remains unclear. We aimed to characterize gender disparities in COVID-19-related cardiology publications across the duration of the ongoing pandemic. Methods We retrospectively analyzed COVID-19-related research articles published in the top 20 impact factor cardiology journals between March and June 2021. Gender representation data were extracted for any author, first authors, and senior authors. Results We found that 841 articles were related to COVID-19, with a total of 5586 authors and an average of 42 articles per journal. Less than a third (29.9%) of the total authors from publications were women. Women represented a smaller proportion of first authors (21.3%) and senior authors (16.4%). Conclusions Female authorship has continued to lag male authorship for the duration of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic may have impeded progress in reducing gender disparities in academic cardiology publications. The low proportions of first and senior female authors may reflect the impact of the pandemic on women in cardiology in leadership domains.

The article provides an overview of the most significant publications on the topic of male infertility. The main selection criteria were the practical significance of the article, as well as the impact factor of the journal in which it was published, according to the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR). As a result, a list of 10 works published in the first quarter (January - March) of 2021 was formed. The review included articles related to the following issues: sperm DNA fragmentation, the use of testicular spermatozoa in ART programs (assisted reproductive technologies), advanced paternal age, the role of the human papillomavirus for male fertility, hormonal modulation by clomiphene, the risk of birth defects in children in ART programs, andrological examination of patients with CFTR gene mutations. And also, an analysis of the new clinical guidelines of the American Urological Association (AUA) was carried out.

Purpose To quantify the gap between radiology and other specialties regarding the amount of literature on healthcare disparities (HCD). Methods Four different searches were conducted to evaluate the amount of literature on HCD in radiology as compared to internal medicine and surgery. Initially, the Journal Citation Report was utilized to search for the five highest ranking journals in each field and a second search used impact factor. A combination of search terms “health” AND “disparities” was used. Two additional searches were performed with PubMed using the terms “health” AND “disparities AND “radiology” with the final term changed for each specialty. The second PubMed search added the term “medical education” for each specialty. Articles were limited to years 2017 to 2020. Results The initial search found 1817 articles discussing “health” and “disparities”. 14.6% of these were radiology, 65.7% internal medicine, and 19.7% surgery. The subsequent search controlling for impact factor found 2176 articles. 12.2% were for radiology, 66.1% were for internal medicine, and 21.7% for surgery. The initial PubMed search found 6543 articles. 9.9% were for radiology, 32.4% for internal medicine, and 57.7% were for surgery. The addition of “medical education” decreased the articles to 807. Radiology had 9.9%, internal medicine was 44.2%, and surgery was 45.9 %. Conclusion A gap in HCD literature exists for radiology as compared to surgery and internal medicine. However, radiology has demonstrated a recent significant push towards understanding HCD. Radiology should continue to capitalize on its momentum and develop HCD curricula and research.

Background Degenerative disease of the elbow is a unique dilemma due to the different pathologies of arthritis. Outcome measures are used by physicians to provide a quantitative measure of patient progression. While there has been a substantial number of case series and studies on treatment of elbow arthritis, the heterogeneity of outcome measures reported in the literature makes it difficult for surgeons to compare results between treatment options. There is no consensus on outcome measure reporting as no measure has been found to be superior to others in the literature. The purpose of this study was to examine the elbow arthritis literature for the most commonly reported outcomes measures after treatment of elbow arthritis and recommend a guideline for reporting in future studies in an attempt to standardize the literature. Methods A query was performed of all studies written in English literature from 2010 to 2020 using PubMed and Scopus databases utilizing PRISMA guidelines. Articles that met inclusion criteria were reviewed for reporting of patient-reported outcome, range of motion, return to work/sport, complication rate, satisfaction rate, revision rate, number of patients, minimum and mean follow-up time, type of treatment, journal, journal impact factor, level of evidence, and number of citations as of April 2020. Results Eighty three studies met inclusion criteria with a mean number of 39 patients per study with a mean age of 53 years. Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS) was the most commonly reported outcome measure (81%) followed by quick Disabilities of Arm Shoulder Hand (qDASH; 23%), DASH (16%), and modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (m-ASES; 16%). The average number of outcome measures per study was 1.6. Studies that reported MEPS had higher number of citations compared to studies that did not (14.21 vs. 7.62 citations; P = .031). Studies that reported MEPS were found to publish more in journals with higher impact factors (ie, impact factor of ≥2) (88% vs. 71%; P = .051). Discussion Outcome measures are inconsistently reported in elbow arthritis literature. Studies that report MEPS were found to be cited more. We recommend reporting of at least two outcome measures in future studies as well as range of motion for easier cross-study analysis. Additional measures such as return to work/sport, satisfaction rate, complication rate, and revision rate should be reported to provide more complete understanding of post-treatment outcome. Conclusion Increased standardization of outcome measure reporting may improve future patients’ outcomes following treatment of elbow arthritis. Levels of Evidence Level IV

Background In line with aging populations and increased application of anesthesia and surgery, perioperative neurocognitive disorder (PND) has received growing attention worldwide. Considerable researches into PND are being conducted; however, the quantity and quality of such researches have not been reported. Through a retrospective bibliometric analysis, this study aims to identify and characterize the top 100 cited publications on PND. Methods We searched the Web of Science database to find the top 100 cited articles focusing on PND. We collected bibliographic information, including year of publication, country of origin, article type, published journal, citation count, and authorship. To determine changes with time, we compared older and newest articles. Results The top 100 cited articles were published between 1955 and 2016; the number of citations ranged from 111 to 1248. The United States had the most published papers; clinical trial was the most common article type. The specialty journals of Anesthesiology and Anesthesia & Analgesia were the two most cited journals. Newest articles had a comparable number of citations to older articles, but the former had higher annual citation rates, greater funding disclosures, more focus on basic research, and more open access publications. Conclusions This study provides a comprehensive overview of the most cited articles and highlights the increasing attention on PND. High-quality clinical trials with a greater journal impact factor receive more citations. However, there has been a growth in the number of basic science studies as an area of research with respect to the pathogenesis of PND.

Objectives Review abstracts presented at the Combined Otolaryngology Society Meeting (COSM) to determine subsequent publication and identify abstract features predictive of publication in high impact journals. Methods A selection of abstracts accepted in the 2015 COSM scientific programs were retrospectively reviewed. MEDLINE searches via PubMed and Google Scholar were performed to determine publication rates. The Journal of Citation Reports was used to determine impact factors for published abstracts. Binomial regression analyses were used to identify factors related to publication in high impact journals. Results 62.4% of reviewed abstracts (n = 623) were subsequently published, with a mean publication time of 14 ± 12 months. Abstract features predictive of publication were basic science type, other science type, prospective studies, multi‐institutional involvement, and presentation at the American Laryngologic Association and American Otologic Society meetings. Based on Wald score, podium presentation was found to have the biggest effect on publication. Factors positively associated with publication in high impact (impact factor > 2.272) journals were increased author number and sample size. Conclusions Overall publication rate of abstracts selected for presentation at COSM in 2015 was on the higher end of previously reported otolaryngology meetings. Abstracts detailing basic science, other science, prospective and multi‐institutional studies were more likely to lead to future publication. Additionally, increased number of authors and sample size lead to publication in higher impact journals. Level of Evidence N/A.

OBJECTIVE To assess the prevalence, magnitude, and disclosure status of industry funding in editorial boards of surgery journals. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Financial conflicts of interest (COI) can bias research. While authors seeking to publish in peer-reviewed surgery journals are required to provide COI disclosures, editorial board members' COI disclosures are generally not disclosed to readers. METHODS We present a cross-sectional analysis of industry funding to editorial board members of high-impact surgery journals. We reviewed top US-based surgery journals by impact factor to determine the presence of financial COI in members of each journal's editorial board. The prevalence and magnitude of COI was determined using 2018 industry reported payments found in the CMS Open Payments database. Journal websites were also reviewed looking for the presence of editorial board disclosure statements. RESULTS A total of 1,002 names of editorial board members from the top 10 high-impact American surgery journals were identified. Of 688 individual physicians based in the USA, 452 (65.7%) were found to have received industry payments in 2018, totaling $21,916,503 with a median funding amount per physician of $1,253 (IQR $156 - $10,769). Funding levels varied by surgical specialty and journal. Editorial board disclosure information was found in only 3.3% of physicians. CONCLUSIONS Industry funding to editorial board members of high impact surgery journals is prevalent and underreported. Mechanisms of disclosure for COI are needed at the editorial board level to provide readers full transparency. This would acknowledge this COI of editorial board members, and thereby attempt to potentially further reduce the risk of bias in editorial decisions.

To evaluate the quality of orthopaedic cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in accordance with the 2016 recommendations by the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.A systematic review of all CEAs from September 2017 to September 2019 in the 10 highest impact orthopaedic surgery journals was performed. Quality scoring used the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument and the Second Panel checklist. QHES scores ≥80 were considered high quality and50 poor quality. Mann-Whitney U and independent samples Kruskal-Wallis tests compared individual and multiple groups, respectively. Linear regression analysis was performed to correlate QHES score, checklist item fulfillment, and impact factor.The 10 highest impact orthopaedic journals published 6,323 articles with 35 (0.55%) meeting inclusion criteria. Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and sports medicine articles comprised 65.7% of included studies. Overall mean QHES score was 89.0 ± 7.6, with 82.8% considered high quality. Mean proportion of Second Panel checklist items fulfilled was 82.1% ± 13.3%, but no studies performed an impact inventory accounting for consequences within and outside the health care sector or discussed ethical implications. Mean QHES score and satisfied checklist items were significantly different by journal (P = .025 and P = .01, respectively). In addition, there was a moderate positive correlation between QHES score and impact factor (r = 0.446, P = .007). TJA CEAs satisfied a higher number of checklist items compared with spine surgery CEAs.Recent orthopaedic CEAs have generally been high quality according to updated Second Panel guidelines but consistently miss checklist items relating to societal impact and ethics. TJA and sports medicine continue to be the most frequently studied orthopaedic subspecialties in health economics, and the breadth of orthopaedic procedures analyzed by CEAs has improved.Level IV, systematic review.

Background In recent years, the number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for lung cancer has increased, but the quality of these guidelines has not been systematically assessed so far. Our aim was to assess the reporting quality of CPGs on lung cancer published since 2018 using the International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Health Care (RIGHT) instrument. Methods We systematically searched the major electronic literature databases, guideline databases and medical society websites from January 2018 to November 2020 to identify all CPGs for small cell and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The search and extraction were completed using standardized forms. The quality of included guidelines was evaluated using the RIGHT statement. We present the results descriptively, including a stratification by selected determinants. Results A total of 49 CPGs were included. The mean proportion across the guidelines of the 22 items of the RIGHT checklist that were appropriately reported was 57.9%. The items most common to be poorly reported were quality assurance (item 17) and description of the role of funders (item 18b), both of which were reported in only one guideline. The proportions of items within each of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist that were correctly reported were Basic information 75.9%; background 83.2%; evidence 44.5%; recommendations 55.4%; review and quality assurance 12.2%; funding and declaration and management of interests 42.9%; and other information 38.1%. The reporting quality of guidelines did not differ between publication years. CPGs published in journals with impact factor >30 tended to be best reported. Conclusions Our results revealed that reporting in CPGs for lung cancer is suboptimal. Particularly the declaration of funding and quality assurance are poorly reported in recent CPGs on lung cancer.

Background Gender disparities still exist in the field of academic surgery. Women face additional obstacles obtaining high-ranking, surgical academia positions compared to men, and this may extend to the appointment of editorial board members. We aim to evaluate the gender distribution of editorial board members, associate editors, and editors-in-chief of top US surgical journals and to recommend interventions, which can promote equitable gender representation among editorial boards. Methods The study is a cross-sectional analysis using publicly available data regarding the number and proportion of female editorial board members, associate editors, and editors-in-chief from 42 US surgical journals. Descriptive statistics and linear regression were performed with significance defined as P Results Of 2,836 editorial board members from 42 US surgical journals, 420 (14.8%) were women. Of 881 associate editors, 118 (13.3%) were women. Only 2/42 (4.8%) of editors-in-chief were women. The mean proportions of female editorial board members and associate editors were 14.5% and 19.5%, respectively. No significant associations were found between the 2019 Scimago Journal & Country Rank indicator nor the 2019 impact factor and the proportion of female editorial board members and female associate editors after adjusting for author H-index. Conclusion Gender disparities are evident in academic surgery, and women comprise a minority of US surgical editorial board members, associate editors, and editors-in-chief. The implementation of women mentorship from senior faculty on behalf of senior residents and junior faculty, as well as journal-facilitated pipeline programs, can diversify editorial board members by increasing women representation and reduce disparities in surgical journal editorial boards.

The impact of COVID‐19 has underlined the need for reliable information to guide clinical practice and policy. This urgency has to be balanced against disruption to journal handling capacity and the continued need to ensure scientific rigour. We examined the reporting quality of highly disseminated COVID‐19 research papers using a bibliometric analysis examining reporting quality and risk of bias (RoB) amongst 250 top scoring Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) COVID‐19 research papers between January and April 2020. Method‐specific RoB tools were used to assess quality. After exclusions, 84 studies from 44 journals were included. Forty‐three (51%) were case series/studies, and only one was an randomized controlled trial. Most authors were from institutions based in China (n = 44, 52%). The median AAS and impact factor was 2015 (interquartile range [IQR] 1,105–4,051.5) and 12.8 (IQR 5–44.2) respectively. Nine studies (11%) utilized a formal reporting framework, 62 (74%) included a funding statement, and 41 (49%) were at high RoB. This review of the most widely disseminated COVID‐19 studies highlights a preponderance of low‐quality case series with few research papers adhering to good standards of reporting. It emphasizes the need for cautious interpretation of research and the increasingly vital responsibility that journals have in ensuring high‐quality publications.

Objectives To analyze the development of publication numbers of female authors in high-, medium-, and low-impact radiological journals. Methods In this bibliometric analysis, gender of the first (FA) and senior author (SA) was assigned to all original research articles and reviews, published in 10 high-, medium-, and low-impact radiological journals in 2007/8 and 2017/18. The adjusted event rate (AER) and adjusted odds ratio (AOR) were calculated using mixed logistic and multinomial logistic regression models to assess and compare female publications according to impact factor, journal, author position, and combination. Results The proportion of female FA and female SA in N = 6979 (2007/2008) and N = 7383 (2017/2018) articles increased to 29.1% and 16.1% in 2017/2018, respectively. While most female authorships were continuously observed in medium-impact journals, the strongest increase occurred for both female FA (AOR 2.0; p < .0001) and SA (AOR 2.1; p < .0001) in low-impact journals. Female SA published significantly more often in a low- (AOR 1.5) or medium- (AOR 1.8) than in a high-ranking journal. Among the high-ranking journals, female FA published most frequently in European Radiology (32.4%; 95% CI [29.3–35.8]; p < .0001), female SA in Investigative Radiology (15.9%; 95% CI [13.7–18.4]; p < .0001). Male same-sex authorships decreased (AOR 0.9), but remained at least twice as common as all-female or mixed authorships. Conclusion The increase in female authorship is reflected in all impact areas. Female FA and SA increased most in low-ranking journals but are most common in medium-ranking journals. Female SA remain rare, especially in high impact journals. Key Points • Compared to the proportion of female radiologists worldwide, female senior authors are underrepresented in all impact areas, in particular in high-impact journals. • Among the included high-ranking radiological journals, female first authors and senior authors were strongest represented in European Radiology and Investigative Radiology, while across all impact areas they mostly published in medium-ranking journals. • Female author combinations were more frequent in low- and medium- than in high-ranking journals, whereas male author combinations remained more common than female senior author collaborations in all impact areas.

Only few studies have analyzed the global distribution of anesthesia research. This study was designed to reveal the current global research status of anesthesiology. Articles published between 1999 and 2018 in international journals in the field of anesthesiology were retrieved from the PubMed database. The top 20 ranked countries were identified. The gross domestic product (GDP) of each country was also retrieved to reveal the correlation between research outputs and the economy. The total outputs and outputs per 10 million inhabitants in each country were calculated and compared. To analyze the quality of publications among the top 10 ranked countries, the impact factor (IF), article influence score (AIS), and immediacy index (ImI) were calculated and analyzed. In addition, the keywords of publications were retrieved to conduct co-occurrence analysis in order to determine the research focus in anesthesiology. A total of 112,918 articles were published in 30 selected journals from 1999 to 2018. There was a positive correlation between research outputs and GDP of 10 countries (p

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the profile of articles published in the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) and potential associations with bibliometric indexes over a 5-yea...

Background Abstracts of systematic reviews (SR) are frequently used to guide clinical decision-making. However, if the abstract is inadequately reported, key information may be missing and it may not accurately summarize the results of the review. Objective We aimed to investigate 1) if abstracts are fully reported; 2) if abstract reporting is associated with review/journal characteristics in physical therapy for low back pain (LBP); and 3) if these abstracts are consistent with the corresponding full texts. Methods We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database for SRs in physical therapy for LBP published between 2015 and 2017. Associations between abstract reporting quality and review/journal characteristics were explored with linear regression. Abstract reporting was assessed with the 12 item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) checklist. Consistency of reporting between abstracts and the full text was evaluated by comparing responses to each item of the PRISMA-A using Kappa coefficients. Methodological quality of the reviews was assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). Results We included 66 SRs, 9 Cochrane and 57 non-Cochrane. Review methodological quality ranged from ‘high’ (8%) to ‘critically low’ (76%). The mean ± SD of the “total number of PRISMA-A fully reported items” (range 0–12 points for fully reported items) was 4.1 ± 1.9 points for non-Cochrane review abstracts and 9.9 ± 1.1 points for Cochrane abstracts. Factors associated with reporting quality of abstracts were: journal impact factor (s 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.35), number of words in abstract (s 0.01; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.01) and review methodological quality (‘critically low’ with s −3.06; 95% CI: −5.30, −0.82; with ‘high’ as reference variable). There was typically inconsistent reporting between abstract and full text, with most Kappa values lower than 0.60. Conclusions The abstracts of SRs in physical therapy for LBP were poorly reported and inconsistent with the full text. The reporting quality of abstracts was higher in journals with a higher impact factor, in abstracts with a greater number of words, and when the review was of higher methodological quality.

BACKGROUND: The literature base for endovascular treatment of brain arteriovenous malformations (BAVMs) has grown exponentially in recent decades. Bibliometric analysis has been used to identify impactful articles in other medical specialties. The aim of this citation analysis was to identify and characterize the top 100 most cited articles in the field of endovascular BAVM treatment. METHODS: The top-cited papers were identified by searching selected keywords (“endovascular treatment,” “interventional treatment,” “brain arteriovenous malformation,” “emboliz(s)ation”) on the Web of Science platform. The top 100 articles were ranked according to their number of citations. Each article was further evaluated to obtain predefined characteristics including citation(s) per year, year of publication, authorship, journal-title and impact factor, article topics, article type, and level of evidence. RESULTS: The top 100 most cited articles for endovascular BAVM treatment were published between 1960 and 2014. The total number of citations for these articles ranged from 56 to 471 (median 85.5). Most articles (76%) were published between 1990 and 2009 in three journals (56%), originated in the USA (52%) followed by France (16%). The most common topic related to embolization agents and the majority of articles constituted level IV or V evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a comprehensive overview of the most cited articles in the field of endovascular BAVM treatment. Our analysis recognizes key contributions from authors and institutions in the field and leads to a better understanding of the evidentiary framework for BAVM treatment.

Background The quality of emergency general surgery (EGS) studies that use the American College of Surgeons-National Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database is variable. We aimed to critically appraise the methodologic reporting of EGS ACS-NSQIP studies. Study design We searched the PubMed ACS-NSQIP bibliography for EGS studies published from 2004 to 2019. The quality of reporting of each study was assessed according to the number of criteria fulfilled with respect to the 13-item RECORD statement and the 10-item JAMA Surgery checklist. Three criteria in each checklist were not applicable and were therefore excluded. An analysis was conducted comparing studies published in high and low impact factor (IF) journals. Results We identified a total of 99 eligible studies. Twenty-six percent of studies were published in high IF journals, and 73% of the journals had a policy requiring adherence to reporting statements. The median number of criteria fulfilled for the RECORD statement (out of 10 items) and the JAMA Surgery checklist (out of 7 items) were both equal to 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 3, 5). Sixty-three percent of studies did not explain the methodology for data cleaning, 81% of studies did not describe the population selection process, and 55% did not discuss the implications of missing variables. There were no differences in overall scores between studies published in high and low IF journals. Conclusions The methodologic reporting of EGS studies using ACS-NSQIP remains suboptimal. Future efforts should focus on improving adherence to the policies to mitigate potential sources of bias and improve the credibility of large database studies.

Purpose Altmetric analyses are a new way of assessing and sharing scientific knowledge. Traditional metrics and altmetric analyses highlight key publications. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the social attention paid to highly cited articles related to glaucoma in the recent English literature and compare with traditional citation metrics. Materials and methods ‘‘Glaucoma’’ was entered as a search term into Thomson Reuter’s Web of Science database, and all articles related to the topic in the last decade were identified. The 50 highly cited articles (T50 list) were analyzed by topic, journal name, author name, year of the publication and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). Descriptive statistics and Spearman correlation test were determined with the use of SPSS. Results According to bibliometric criteria, there were 31,370 eligible articles and the median (range) citation number was recorded as 181.5 (158.75–250.75). The T50 list was ranked with AASs between 176 and 0. The median AAS was 5 (2.75–10). The main subjects of the top 10 highly cited articles were mostly related to follow-up and prognostics about glaucoma (n = 3), while the main subjects of the top 10 articles with the highest AAS were related to genetics in glaucoma pathogenesis (n = 2), treatment modalities (n = 2) and pathophysiology with therapeutics of glaucoma disease (n = 2). AASs and citation number showed a positive moderate correlation (r = 0.403 p = 0.004), although AASs did not correlate with journal impact factor (r = 0.36 p = 0.01). No statistically significant correlation was found for ASSs and citation numbers with H-index of the journals on the T50 list. Conclusions Bibliometric-based altmetric analyses offer important but different perspectives regarding article impact. This study provides valuable information about trending topics related to glaucoma research and its impact in both the academic literature and social media Clinical trial registration With regard to the data characteristics of the manuscript, which is mainly retrospective and international, the clinical trial registration process is theoretically not applicable to this study.

Objective Understanding the impact different journal articles have in any academic field is important - particularly in emerging professions. A bibliometric analysis like this does not yet exist for paramedicine, despite the rapid increase in its primary literature. The objective of the present study was to identify and analyse the 100 top-cited articles about paramedicine. Methods We searched the Scopus database in August 2020 for studies relating to paramedicine. After screening titles and abstracts, we extracted the citation count, journal name, publication year, and country of origin. We manually assessed whether the study was clinical or not, noted the sex of the authors, the profession of first and last authors and the study design used. Results The median citation count for the top 100 papers in paramedicine was 58 (interquartile range 46-84 citations). The articles were published across 48 different journals, with Resuscitation and Prehospital Emergency Care being the two most frequent. The top-cited paramedic papers originated from 16 different countries and were written predominantly by medical doctors. Three quarters (73%) of the studies had a clinical focus, and a quarter (26%) were randomised controlled trials. Conclusions The evolution of paramedicine towards professionalism is backed up by the growth of its own body of knowledge. This analysis of the 100 most cited studies in paramedicine is the first of its kind and highlights that paramedicine articles have a high citation count and are published across numerous journals, but with a relative lack of contribution from paramedic practitioners and female researchers.

Introduction and hypothesis Variations in outcome measures and reporting of outcomes in trials on surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) using synthetic mesh have been evaluated and reported. However, the quality of outcome reporting, methodology of trials and their publication parameters are important considerations in the process of development of Core Outcome Sets. We aimed to evaluate these characteristics in randomized controlled trials on surgery for POP using mesh. Methods Secondary analysis of randomized controlled trials on surgical treatments using synthetic mesh for POP previously included in a systematic review developing an inventory of reported outcomes and outcome measures. The methodological quality was investigated with the modified Jadad criteria. Outcome reporting quality was evaluated with the MOMENT criteria. Publication parameters included publishing journal, impact factor and year of publication. Results Of the 71 previously reviewed studies published from 2000 to 2017, the mean JADAD score was 3.59 and the mean MOMENT score was 4.63. Quality of outcomes (MOMENT) was related to methodological quality (JADAD) (rho = 0.662; p = 0.000) and to year of publication (rho = 0.262; p = 0.028). Conclusions Methodological quality and outcome reporting quality appear correlated. However, publication characteristics do not have strong associations with the methodological quality of the studies. Evaluation of the quality of outcomes, methodology and publication characteristics are all an indispensable part of a staged process for the development of Core Outcome and Outcome Measure Sets.

The article provides an overview of the most significant publications on the topic of male infertility. The main selection criteria were considered the practical significance of the article, as well as the impact factor of the journal in which it was published, according to the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR). As a result, a list of 10 papers was formed that published from October - December 2020. The review included articles on the following issues: sperm DNA fragmentation and oxidative-reductive balance in the male reproductive system, advanced paternal age, hormonal stimulation in patients with nonobstructive azoospermia, the relationship of cancer with infertility, as well as embryological methods to increase the effectiveness of assisted reproductive technologies procedures.

OBJECTIVE The past two decades have seen a vast expansion of social media in all aspects of our lives. Scholars and journals are steadily increasing their social media presence to reach a wider audience. We compared the social media mentions (SMs) of vascular surgery publications and their effect on the literature citations (LCs) for them. METHODS A total of 169 articles from three renowned vascular surgery journals (Journal of Vascular Surgery [JVS], Annals of Vascular Surgery, and European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery) in October 2016 were collected. All three journals are published by the same publisher (Elsevier). SMs were tracked using Altmetric Bookmarklet for Twitter and Facebook mentions. The LCs were evaluated using Scopus and Google Scholar. The number of citations was compared between those with and without any SMs and among the three journals using nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis tests. The proportion of articles with SMs was compared among the three journals using a χ2 test. The relationship between the numbers of SMs and LCs was assessed using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient and reported as 95% confidence intervals. Statistical significance was assigned at P < .05. RESULTS Of the 169 articles examined, 51 (30.2%) had a presence regarding social media usage. JVS has both Twitter and Facebook presence. The Annals of Vascular Surgery and European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery only have Twitter accounts. JVS had the highest total number of citations, number of LCs per manuscript, and SMs per manuscript. A significant difference was found in the median, Q1 (median of the lower half of the data), and Q3 (median of the upper half of the data) number of total Google citations between those articles with and without SMs (median, 8.0; Q1, 3.0; Q3, 17.0; vs median, 3.0; Q1, 0.0; Q3, 8.0, respectively; Kruskal-Wallis P < .001). Similarly, a significant difference was found in the median number of total Scopus citations between those articles with and without SMs (median, 5.0; Q1, 2.0; Q3, 13.0 vs median, 2.0; Q1, 0.0; Q3, 6.0, respectively; Kruskal-Wallis P < .001). Articles with a SM showed a 2.7- fold increase in median total citations in Google and a 2.5-fold increase in median total citations in Scopus. The Spearman correlation coefficients to determine the relationship between the absolute number of SMs and LCs revealed a positive, but weak, correlation, largely driven by the majority of articles with no SMs. The difference in the median number of citations among the three journals was not statistically significant, either by Google (P = .22) or Scopus (P = .08), nor was the difference in the proportion of articles with SMs among the journals statistically significant (P = .36). CONCLUSIONS The presence of SMs for vascular surgery publications, especially clinical science articles, was associated with a significantly increased number of median LCs during the 3 years after publication. The three journals did not differ with respect to the median number of citations or proportion of articles with SMs.

BACKGROUND The journal impact factor (IF) is one of the most widely adopted metrics to assess journal value. We aimed to investigate the trends in the IF and ranking of plastic surgery journals (PSJs) over a 22-year period. METHODS The Journal Citation Report 2018 was used to identify all journals within the field of plastic surgery from 1997 to 2018. We analyzed the IF of PSJs and that of the category surgery. RESULTS A total of 34 PSJs were identified. The mean IF increased from 0.584 (median, 0.533) in 1997 to 1.58 (median, 1.399) in 2018 (P < 0.0001). Over the same time, the median IF of the journals in the category surgery increased from 0.914 to 1.883. The mean journal IF percentile of PSJs within surgery remained fairly stable (P = 0.999). A strong positive correlation was identified between the IF of PSJs and both the 5-year IF (r = 0.943, P < 0.0001) and the immediacy index (r = 0.736, P < 0.0001). The percentage of self-citations across the study period was fairly stable at a mean of 19.2%. A weak positive correlation was found between the IF and the percentage of self-citations (r = 0.171, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS The mean journal IF in PSJs has been trending upward over the last 22 years. Ranking of PSJs IF within the category surgery has remained unchanged. The self-citation rate has been fairly stable and correlated weakly with the IF. A strong positive correlation exists between the IF and both the immediacy index and the 5-year IF.

Medical school and residency programs encourage increased research, and thousands of abstracts are submitted to conferences annually. This study sought to determine the rate of publication of oral presentations from the 2017 Academic Surgical Congress (ASC) and assess factors that influence the likelihood of publication.Abstracts selected for oral, plenary, and QuickShot presentations at the 2017 ASC were evaluated for publication status. Publication status, including date of publication and journal title, the academic rank of first and senior authors, and the type of study were collected. Senior author funding status, as well as source and amount of funding, were cataloged. These variables were noted at 16 mo and then later at 34 mo after the conference.Of the 360 oral and plenary presentations, 41.4% (n = 149) and 70.5% were published at 16 and then 34 mo, respectively. At 16 mo, Basic science, Clinical outcomes, and Education had publication rates of 31.7%, 51.1%, and 57.7%. At 34 mo, they were 76.1%, 69.1%, and 60.06%. QuickShot presentations had a publication rate of 17%, 69%, and 14% for Basic Science, Clinical Outcomes, and Education, respectively. At 16 mo, abstracts with senior authors with an academic rank of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor had publication rates of 43.3% (22), 49.4% (39), and 41.8% (37), respectively (P = 0.697). At 34 mo, publication rates for senior authors was 21.8% (53), 32.9% (80), and 45.2% (110) for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor, respectively (P= 0.01). Quick shot presentations had publication rates of 14%, 26%, and 49% for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor, respectively. 191 (53.2%) senior authors had funding, of which 125 (66.8%) were from the National Institute of Health. 61% of abstracts with a funded senior author went on to be published, whereas 38.9% of abstracts with an unfunded senior author were published. The presence of funding continued to have a positive association with publication (P 0.01 versus P 0.01) at 16 and 34 mo postconference. In QuickShot presentations, 88% of abstracts with a funded senior author went on to be published. Of Quick shot presentations without funding, 100% were published.There was an increase in publication rate from 16 to 34 mo after the 2017 ASC conference for oral presentations. At longer follow-up, the academic rank of the senior author and the funded abstracts were associated with abstracts achieving publication, whereas the academic rank of the first author, presentation type, and funding source was not. Funding was significantly associated with the Presentation Type at the conference and the Journal Impact Factor of the manuscript, whereas abstract type was not. QuickShot presentations did not fare as well regarding publication status; at approximately 3 y, the publication rate was 43%.

Introduction: Problems about reporting of a scientific study can affect dissemination of research in different manners. It is known that study methods are frequently not described in adequate detail and that results are presented ambiguously or selectively. To overcome these problems, reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT, PRISMA, STARD and STROBE statements) have been developed to increase the transparency of research. While recent evidence suggested that these guidelines are frequently used inappropriately in studies published in the major medical journals, the extent and appropriateness of use in physical therapy research has not been systematically evaluated. The aim of this meta-research study will be to evaluate the frequency of using reporting guidelines and their appropriate use in physical therapy published research. Methods and Analysis: A cross-sectional analysis is planned on a random sample of 200 studies published in the last ten years (2010-2019) in the five generic rehabilitation journals with the highest 5-year impact factor. Randomization will be stratified for publication date to include an equal number of studies from 2010 to 2014 (n=100), and from 2015 to 2019 (n=100). Randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, diagnostic accuracy studies and observational studies will be included. Crude prevalence estimates with 95% confidence intervals of using and appropriateness of using will be estimated. A bivariate analysis will assess the relationship between the use of reporting guidelines and the year of publication. Ethics and Dissemination: Several studies have shown the positive influence of reporting guidelines on the completeness of research reporting but no one investigated the use and the appropriateness of reporting guidelines in physical therapy research. Therefore, this study will add relevant knowledge that may contribute to improve further the reporting of rehabilitation research. The results of this research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at relevant (inter)national scientific events.

Introduction The number of citations is considered as an indirect indicator of the merit of an article, journal or researcher, although it is not an infallible method to determine scientific quality. Our goal is to determine the characteristics of the articles most cited about pancreas and laparoscopy. Methods We performed a search of all articles published in any journal about pancreas and laparoscopy until September 2019 and selected the 100 most cited papers. We recorded number of citations, journal, year of publication, quartil, impact factor, institution, country, authors type of paper, type of surgery, topic and area. Results The top 100 citations account 10,970 citations in total. The journal with the most articles is Surgical Endoscopy and 2007 is the year with the highest number of articles in the top 100 citations. The percentage of publications from America and Europe are similar. Case series is the most frequently paper, outcomes/morbidity is the most frequently discussed topic, and distal pancreatectomy is the most frequently type of surgery. Conclusions This bibliometric study on pancreas and laparoscopy is conditioned by the time factor, since laparoscopy has arrived later at pancreatic surgery, probably due to the morbidity and mortality associated with pancreatic surgery and the need for a high specialization in this field. The literature is recent and scarce. More and better-quality studies are needed in this field.

Background Citation analysis is commonly used to evaluate the impact of academic publications within an area of study. The purpose of this study is to review the publications with the highest Altmetric scores related to total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and assess the correlation with traditional bibliometrics. Methods Altmetric scores were obtained for the top articles relating to THA and TKA and organized from highest to lowest scores. The Clarivate Analytics Web of Knowledge database was used to search the top articles by Altmetric score. Articles meeting inclusion criteria were reviewed for various metrics, including number of citations, journal impact factor at the time of publication, and study type and design. Results The top THA and TKA publications were cited 3042 times and 7523 times, respectively. The former were published in journals with an average impact factor of 17.861, and the latter in journals with an average impact factor of 15.564. For THA, Altmetric score demonstrated a significant, weakly positive correlation with the number of citations (P = .008). For TKA, Altmetric score was found to have a significant, weakly positive correlation with impact factor of journal (P = .04); however, it was nonsignificant for citation count (P = .11). When one outlier is removed, the correlation with citation count is statistically significant (P = .009). Conclusion While alternative metrics cannot replace traditional bibliometrics, they may serve a complimentary role in describing the influence of research. Thus, the Altmetric score represents an additional tool to identify the most influential articles to guide learning and evidence-based practice.

Non-transparent statistical reporting contributes to the reproducibility crisis in life sciences, despite guidelines and educational articles regularly published. Envisioning more effective measures for ensuring transparency requires the detailed monitoring of incomplete reporting in the literature. In this study, a systematic approach was used to sample 16 periodicals from the ISI Journal Citation Report database and to collect 233 preclinical articles (including both in vitro and animal research) from online journal content published in 2019. Statistical items related to the use of location tests were quantified. Results revealed that a large proportion of articles insufficiently describe tests (median 44.8%, IQR [33.3–62.5%], k = 16 journals), software (31%, IQR [22.3–39.6%]) or sample sizes (44.2%, IQR [35.7–55.4%]). The results further point at contradictory information as a component of poor reporting (18.3%, IQR [6.79–26.7%]). No detectable correlation was found between journal impact factor and the quality of statistical reporting of any studied item. The under-representation of open-source software (4.50% of articles) suggests that the provision of code should remain restricted to articles that use such packages. Since mounting evidence indicates that transparency is key for reproducible science, this work highlights the need for a more rigorous enforcement of existing guidelines.

AIM Use of systematic reviews (SRs) as first-level evidence for guideline recommendations hinges on review quality. In particular, US guidelines for adherence-related recommendations in the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are not based on available SRs of adherence-outcome relationships; it is unclear why. No published studies report on the quality of SRs on HIV adherence and outcomes, which may be driving the lack of use. We describe the quality of this body of literature. METHODS Literature searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed Central, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, ScIELO Citation Index, and Ovid Emcare. Screening and quality assessments were performed in duplicate using AMSTAR 2. Funding sources and impact factors of publishing journals were also extracted, and correlations between quality rankings and numbers of critical weaknesses versus impact factors were assessed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS Nine SRs of 1141 records met eligibility criteria. Overall confidence in the results was critically low for most (78%) SRs. Underperformance was found across all AMSTAR 2 domains. Impact factor (a surrogate or journal reputation) did not correlate with quality. CONCLUSIONS SRs do not necessarily comprise top-level evidence despite the availability of quality appraisal tools and reporting guidance, which could explain the lack of SR evidence in US HIV medication adherence-related guideline recommendations. All parties to evidence synthesis publication should require quality assessment of studies.

The current study aimed to determine the publication outcome of abstracts presented at the 16th European Congress of Endocrinology (ECE 2014). All presentations were collected with the web scraping - Python coding from the official website and converted into Google Scholar and PubMed search links with coding. A particular interface was coded to evaluate the results. An online survey was sent to the authors to assess the impact of congress on their publication. A total of 1205 abstracts from 71 countries were featured at the congress of which, 1145 (95%) were poster presentations (PP), and 60 (5%) were oral presentations. Subsequently, 341 abstracts (28.3%) were published as a full paper. There was no major change from the abstract in 73.3% of full articles whereas 68.9% had at least one minor change. OP had higher conversion rates to publication than PP (65% vs 26.4; p = 0.01) and a higher median number of citations than PP (12 vs 6; p = 0.01). The median time to publication was 12 months (IQR: 2–24 months). OP was published in journals with a higher median impact factor (IF) than PP (5 vs 2.94; p = 0.01). Multi-country collaborative studies turned into more publications than single-country studies (OR: 3.91 95% CI: 2.52–6.06; p

Background Although Altmetric has been widely used by researchers to monitor the audience of their articles, there are no studies that have analysed factors associated with Altmetric score for systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. Objectives 1) To analyse factors that could be associated with Altmetric scores for low back pain systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. 2) To describe the characteristics of these articles and their Altmetric scores. Methods We searched for all low back pain systematic reviews and guidelines indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database published between 2015 and 2017. We extracted data related to the published paper, the publishing journal, and Altmetric scores. Results A total of 66 systematic reviews and 5 guidelines were included. The variable impact factor (independent variable) was associated with Altmetric mentioned score (dependent variable) with a β coefficient of 15.4 (95% CI: 0.97, 29.7) ajusted to all remaining variables. The variable number of citations normalized by year of publication (independent variable) was associated with Altmetric reader score (dependent variable) with a β coefficient of 6.4 (95% CI: 4.03, 8.72) ajusted to all remaining variables. We also found that the majority of the systematic reviews and guidelines were published in English, had a descriptive title, were published as open access, included multicenter studies, and had media release generated by the publishing journal. Conclusion Metrics related to the number of citations, such as the impact factor are associated with Altmetric scores.