ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2025
The burden of unwanted e-mails in academic surgery: a cross-sectional study.
Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2025. 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.
- Reply to the commentary on "The burden of unwanted e-mails in academic surgery: a cross-sectional study".International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnwanted e-mails (UEM) constitute a futile problem for academic surgeons. However, data investigating the magnitude of this concern and its determinants are lacking.
objectiveTo assess the burden UEM in academic surgery and to identify factors associated with a high burden of UEM.
methodsCross-sectional study conducted in a division of visceral surgery of a tertiary center, between May 1-31, 2024. Participants included physicians of the division; UEM received by the participants during the study period were collected and examined. Primary outcome was the absolute number of UEM. High burden of UEM was defined as participant UEM number ≥ percentile 75 of UEM number.
resultsParticipants included 36 physicians (13 residents, 14 fellows and 9 consultants). A total of 2934 UEM were examined; among them, 1707 (58.2%) solicited scientific contributions, including invitations to submit manuscripts (n = 910, 31%). Number of UEM per participant was heterogenous (range 0-601), with a median of 16 (0-106). The latter also showed differences between residents 0 (0-1), fellows 34 (5-70), and consultants 147 (101-402) (p<0.001). Finally, high burden of UEM was associated with surrogates of experience and research activity, such as age (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04-1.41; p = 0.011), board certification in visceral surgery (OR, 11.50; 95% CI, 2.01-65.91; p = 0.006), number of peer-review publications (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24; p = 0.027) or H-index (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.73; p = 0.012).
conclusionsUEM represent a major concern for academic surgeons. Exposure to UEM varies proportionally to professional experience and research activity.
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.