Observational studyBJS open2020
Proof of surgical publication prowess: prospective observational study of factors associated with surrogate markers of academic reach.
Observational study in BJS open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Upper gastrointestinal training in the UK and Ireland: a Roux Group Study.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the UK, general surgery higher surgical trainees (HSTs) must publish at least three peer-reviewed scientific articles (as first, second or corresponding author) to qualify for certification of completion of training (CCT). This study aimed to identify the factors associated with success in this arena.
methodsDeanery rosters supplemented with data from the Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme, PubMed and ResearchGate were used to identify the profiles of consecutive HSTs. Primary outcomes were publication numbers at defined points in higher training (speciality training year (ST) 3-8); secondary outcomes were the Hirsch index and ResearchGate scores.
resultsFifty-nine consecutive HSTs (24 women, 35 men) were studied. The median publication number was 3 (range 0-30). At least three published articles were obtained by 30 HSTs (51 per cent), with 19 (38 per cent) of 50 HSTs achieving this by ST4 (of whom 15 (79 per cent) had undertaken out of programme for research (OOPR) time) and 24 (80 per cent) by ST6. Thirteen HSTs (22 per cent) (ST3, 6; ST4, 4; ST5, 2; ST8, 1) had yet to publish at the time of writing. OOPR was associated with achieving three publications (24 of 35 (69 per cent) versus 6 of 24 (25 per cent) with no formal research time; P = 0·001), higher overall number of publications (median 6 versus 1 respectively; P < 0·001), higher ResearchGate score (median 23·37 versus 5·27; P < 0·001) and higher Hirsch index (median 3 versus 1; P < 0·001). In multivariable analysis, training grade (odds ratio (OR) 1·89, 95 per cent c.i. 0·01 to 3·52; P = 0·045) and OOPR (OR 6·55, 2·04 to 21·04; P = 0·002) were associated with achieving three publications.
conclusionIf CCT credentials are to include publication profiles, HST programmes should incorporate research training in workforce planning.
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.