ArticleSurgery open science2026
A qualitative interview study of acute care surgeons' approach to literature acquisition: Are you up to date on staying up to date?
Article in Surgery open science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Acute Care Surgery (ACS) surgeons care for a wide variety of life-threatening surgical conditions and have a high burden of night and weekend calls. Maintaining current knowledge of published literature is increasingly challenging. This study aims to describe motivations and methods used by ACS surgeons to stay current with published literature. We focused on how ACS surgeons acquire new information and apply it in practice, their views on the effectiveness, efficiency, and potential bias of their methods, and their perspectives regarding future knowledge acquisition methods. Methods: A prospective qualitative semi-structured interview study was performed. Informed consent was obtained from purposively recruited participants: ACS surgeons practicing in the United States. Interviews continued until theme saturation. Reflexive inductive thematic analysis was used to generate qualitative results. Results: Thirteen interviews were conducted, averaging 27.3 min each. Participant interviews revealed several motivations for remaining current with published literature: problem-based literature review, self-promotion, curiosity, job performance, and job satisfaction. Participants used various strategies to identify and access new literature, including academic and non-academic sources. Barriers included paywalls, time constraints, and information overload. Facilitators included user-friendly interfaces and working at an academic institution. Participants provided insights into their effectiveness, efficiency, and biases and were wary of artificial intelligence processes that may reinforce bias. Participants unanimously desired more efficient methods when asked how literature acquisition may improve in the future. Conclusions: ACS surgeons are motivated to stay current with published literature. Current barriers and facilitators were identified, and participants desired more efficient methods to stay current.
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.