ArticleANZ journal of surgery2017
Who, where, what and where to now? A snapshot of publishing patterns in Australian orthopaedic surgery.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review of research output of Australian and New Zealand colorectal surgeons over the past 20 years.SAGE open medicine · 2020Review
- A decade of Australian and New Zealand orthopaedic publications: a bibliometric trend analysis from 2008 to 2018.International orthopaedics · 2019Article
- Review of 20 years of vascular surgery research in Australasia: Defining future directions.SAGE open medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDevelopment of core research competency is a principle of orthopaedic surgical training in Australia. This paper aims to provide an objective snapshot of publications by Australian orthopaedic trainees and surgeons, to contribute to the discussion on how to identify and build on research capability in the Australian Orthopaedic Association (AOA).
methodsBy analysing journals with a journal impact factor >1 from 2009 to 2015, data were gathered to explore scientific journal publications by Australian orthopaedic surgeons and trainees in relation to who are the authors, what they are reporting and where they are publishing.
resultsOne thousand five hundred and thirty-nine articles were identified with 134 orthopaedic trainees and 519 surgeons as authors. The publication rate for both trainees and surgeons was just over two in five. The majority of studies were of level three or four evidence (Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines). Only 5% of trainee papers were published without surgeons' co-authorship. Eighty-six percent of papers published by surgeons did not involve a trainee. The rates of trainees publishing with other trainees were low.
conclusionOnly 5% of trainee papers were published without surgeons' co-authorship, highlighting the importance of surgeon mentorship in developing trainee research capability. The 86% of papers published by surgeons without trainee co-authorship raises the question of missed mentoring opportunities. Low rates of trainee co-authorship highlight potential for trainees to work together to support each other's research efforts. There is scope for more studies involving higher levels of evidence. This paper raises discussion points and areas for further exploration in relation to AOA trainee research capability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.