Search

The purpose of this study was (1) to determine how much emphasis is placed on the Personal Statement (PS) by program directors (PDs) and (2) to gain a better understanding of what factors within the PS are considered most important to PDs. An anonymous survey was distributed to PDs at allopathic orthopaedic residency programs in the United States using Survey Monkey (San Mateo, CA). Survey responses were received from 51 of 152 (34%) PDs. Forty-five (88.2%) identified as male, five (9.8%) identified as female, and one (1.9%) chose not to disclose. PDs reported the PS was of average importance, with an average score of 2.82 (range,1-4). Although the PS is still given consideration as part of the overall orthopaedic surgery residency application process, it does not play a major role in determining which applicants will be invited for an interview or how they will be ranked. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 31(2):090-095, 2022).

Orthopaedic surgery is one of the most competitive specialties in the residency match. The personal statement (PS) is one component of the application. The significance of the PS to orthopaedic surgery residency applicants is unknown. This study evaluates applicant perceptions of the PS. Applicants to two separate United States orthopaedic residency programs for the 2019-2020 cycle were invited to participate. Survey was distributed via email. Twenty-one percent (204/978) of applicants completed the survey. Most were men (157/204, 77%), and most (125/204, 61%) spent up to 15 hours writing their PS. Many [79.4% (162/204)] believed the PS should continue to be included in the application. Women always edited their PS, while 7.0% (11/ 157) of men did not use any editors. Applicants believe the PS is valuable. The PS is time consuming but allows applicants to communicate details that otherwise may not be included in their application. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 31(1):034-041, 2022).

Background: Institutional academic productivity remains an influential factor in an applicant's selection of fellowship training. This study aimed to determine the quality and quantity of research in the United States orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs and identify those with highest productivity., Methods: The Arthroscopy Association of North America Fellowship Directory was used to evaluate 88 fellowships in the United States. Publication data and Hirschberg indices (h-index) were collected from the Scopus database. Subanalysis was performed based on the number of publications and mean h-index., Results: Total number of publications per faculty member ranged from 0 to 866, with a median of 20. The median h-index per faculty member was 9. The number of fellows was correlated with a higher mean average h-index of faculty members (P = 0.05). The five programs with the highest number of publications included Hospital for Special Surgery, Rush University, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, and Boston Children's Hospital., Conclusions: Most academic productivity in sports medicine is produced by a relatively small number of fellowship programs in the United States. Of interest, the number of fellows or faculty does not affect significantly the quality or quantity of research productivity at top institutions., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Clinical studies are often at risk of spin, a form of bias where beneficial claims are overstated while negative findings are minimized or dismissed. Spin is often more problematic in abstracts given their brevity and can result in the misrepresentation of a study's actual findings. The goal of this study is to aggregate primary and secondary studies reporting the clinical outcomes of the use of subacromial balloon spacers in the treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears to identify the incidence of spin and find any significant association with study design parameters. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Independent searches were completed on 2 databases (PubMed and Embase) for primary studies, systematic and current concepts reviews, and meta-analyses and the results were compiled. Two authors independently screened the studies using a predetermined inclusion criteria and aggregated data including titles, publication journals and years, authors, study design, etc. Each study was independently assessed for the presence of 15 different types of spin. Statistical analysis was conducted to identify associations between study characteristics and spin. Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria for our analysis, of which 10 were reviews or meta-analyses and 19 were primary studies. Spin was identified in every study except for 2 (27/29, 93.1%). Type 3 spin, "Selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention" and type 9 spin, "Conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite reporting bias" were most frequently noted in our study, both observed in 12/29 studies (41.4%). Date of publication, and adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses or "The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews" were study characteristics associated with a higher rate of certain types of spin. There was a statistically significant association between disclosure of external study funding source and the presence of spin type 4, but none of the other forms of spin. Spin is highly prevalent in the abstracts of primary studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses discussing the use of subacromial balloon spacer technology in the treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Our findings revealed that spin in the abstract tended to favor the balloon spacer intervention. Further efforts are required in the future to mitigate spin within the abstracts of published manuscripts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]