UK paediatric surgical academic output (2005–2020): A cause for concern?

Abstract

BackgroundThe publication record can be regarded as a key metric of the academic output of a craft surgical speciality with an almost exponential increase in the number of such publications worldwide over the past 20 years (Ashfaq et al. J Surg Res 2018;229:10–11). We aimed to examine and explore if this was the experience within UK paediatric surgery centres. MethodsThe academic search engine Scopus™ (Elsevier) was used to track every paediatric surgeon's (NHS or University) publication history between Jan. 2005 – Dec. 2020. This was validated by an algorithmic search of PubMed™. The h-index (citations/publication), considered a validated metric of career academic output, was also calculated for each individual surgeon. A Field-Weighted Citation Index (Scopus™) (FWCI) was used to assess impact of individual publications. Textbooks, book chapters, abstracts, duplications (“double dipping“) and output attributed to UK BAPS-CASS national studies were excluded. Some output(s), not considered as relevant to “paediatric surgery”, was edited. Data are quoted as median(range). ResultsDuring this 16-year period, there were 3838 publications identified from 26 centres with a “top ten” listing of those paediatric surgical units contributing over half the output (n = 2189, 57%). To look for evidence of trend(s) we analysed the output from these surgical centres in two 5-year periods (2005–9 and 2015–19) and showed an overall fall in output(s) - [730 (53.4%) to 645 (46.4%)] with 6/10 (60%) ‘ top ten ‘ centres here recording a reduction in publications. The median h-index of the 232 contributing paediatric surgical consultants was 12 (range 1–56). The best performing publication from the “top ten” centres had 96.5(51–442) citations with the FWCI being 4.5 (2.2 – 30.2). ConclusionsThis study highlights current paediatric surgery publication output metrics in UK centres. There is evidence of a relative reduction in outputs overall which is a cause for concern for the future, although individual publications from the 10 most active units in the UK remain highly cited. These findings may serve purpose in several ways: (i) UK paediatric surgical centre rankings may be helpful for guiding residency / trainee application; (ii) surgical research funding for the top performing units may be better facilitated and finally (iii) UK centres showing a ‘ fertile ground ‘ for nurturing and training paediatric surgeons with academic aspirations could be useful for future workforce planning.