Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38213852›Full record

ArticleThe Iowa orthopaedic journal2023

Publication Rates Vary Across Orthopaedic Subspecialties: A Longitudinal Analysis of AAOS Abstracts.

Mitchell A Johnson, Andrew Parambath, Neal Shah, Apurva S Shah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Iowa orthopaedic journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mitchell A JohnsonHospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
Andrew ParambathPerelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Neal ShahCase Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Apurva S ShahDivision of Orthopedic Surgery, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Presentation of research at national orthopaedic meetings and subsequent publication are important for both information exchange among surgeons and individual academic advancement. However, the academic landscape and pressures that researchers face may differ greatly across different subspecialties. This study attempts to explore and quantify differences in research presented at national conferences and its implication on ultimate likelihood of publication in peer-reviewed journals. Methods: All abstracts from the Annual Meetings of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) from 2016 and 2017 were reviewed and categorized based on subspecialty focus. Resulting publications were identified using a systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Multivariate binary logistic regression modelling was used to assess the predictive value of abstract characteristics on eventual publication. Results: A total of 1805 abstracts from the 2016 and 2017 AAOS conferences were reviewed. The overall publication rate of abstracts following the AAOS meetings was 71.6%, with an average time to publication from abstract submission deadline and impact factor of 19.8 months and 2.878, respectively. Statistical differences were observed across subspecialties with respect to publication rate (p<0.001), time to publication (p<0.001), and impact factor (p<0.001). The subspecialty with the highest publication rate, largest impact factor, and shortest average time to publication was Sports Medicine with 83.2%, 3.98, and 17.6 months, respectively; despite lower average sample size (p<0.001) and frequency of multicenter design (p<0.001) compared with other subspecialties. The subspecialty with the lowest publication rate and impact factor was Hand and Wrist with 53.3% and 1.41, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrates a lower likelihood for internationally authored abstracts (OR: 0.75, p=0.021) and higher likelihood for basic science abstracts (OR: 1.52, p-value=0.023) to reach publication. Conclusion: Differences in publication rate across orthopaedic subspecialties were observed with articles in sports medicine more likely to be published, published quickly, and featured in a higher impact factor journals. Understanding these differences, and how they relate to the publication and promotion of novel research, is important for orthopaedic researchers.

Indexed as

OrthopedicsPublishingSports MedicineBibliometricsHumansLogistic ModelsSocieties, MedicalUnited StatesAAOSorthopaedic subspecialtiesorthopedicspublication rateresearchsubspecialty

Identifiers

PMID38213852
PMCPMC10777694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.