Surgical Journals Research Articles

Founding Physicians of the Medical College of Georgia and Their Connections to Crawford Long and the First Surgical Anesthetic

Milton Antony (1789-1839), an apprenticed trained physician, began educating medical apprentices in 1826 and helped to establish the Medical College of Georgia (MCG) in 1829. Antony recruited additional faculty, Louis Dugas (anatomy and physiology), and Paul Eve (surgery), and together they worked to promote the dissemination of new medical knowledge and enhance and reform medical education. As a result of their efforts, the Southern Medical and Surgical Journal (SMSJ) was established in 1836. The SMSJ became the most successful and widely read regional medical journal. Unfortunately, upon the death of Milton Antony because of the Augusta yellow fever epidemic, the SMSJ ceased publication in 1839. Paul Eve then became Dean of MCG and revived the SMSJ in 1844.Crawford Long (1815-1878) administered ether anesthesia for surgical removal of a neck tumor to James Venable in 1842. For several possible reasons, he did not publish his experience with ether until after Morton’s demonstration of ether in Boston in 1846. Crawford Long did meet with Paul Eve, in Augusta at MCG, and was encouraged to publish his experiences with ether in the revived SMSJ, which he did in 1849.It is quite possible that if Milton Antony had lived, and the SMSJ had been continuously published, that Crawford Long may have published his use of ether well in advance of Morton’s ether demonstration in 1846. Had that occurred, the great controversy during the mid-nineteenth century over who first used ether for surgical anesthesia would not have existed, and Crawford Long would have received appropriate credit during his lifetime.

'Young' at heart: Remarks on James Young Simpson's middle name.

James Simpson’s middle name ‘Young’ does not appear in the parish record of his baptism or in the official records of his studies at the University of Edinburgh. The earliest documentary evidence we have identified of Simpson signing his name as ‘James Y. Simpson’ is correspondence dated November 1832 to Walter Grindlay, his future father-in-law. Correspondence from Simpson in 1835, a directory listing in 1836, and Simpson’s articles in the Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal in 1836 and 1838, refute suggestions that Simpson assumed the middle name ‘Young’ when he applied for the Chair of Midwifery in Edinburgh in 1839. We are unable to confirm whether Simpson used the middle name ‘Young’ informally or in correspondence while he was studying at Edinburgh University, or whether he formally assumed the name following his graduation in 1832.

The increasing prominence of "non-surgical" articles in surgical literature.

Publications in the surgical field have usually to do with technical skills (TS). However, the field peripheral to surgical procedures, which brings to bear non-technical skills (NTS) has been achieving increasing prominence. The goal of this study is to objectively assess the evolution of the two fields in surgical literature. The authors perused all the articles published over a decade in four large-scale surgical journals and assigned them to the following three categories: (1) TS, (2) NTS or (3) miscellaneous. While the "TS group" included all aspects of surgical procedures, the "NTS group" comprised all aspects of non-surgical perioperative management, and the "miscellaneous group" was composed of all elements extraneous to the first two fields. Of the 8775 articles analyzed, 4326 (49%) belonged to the TS group, 2343 (27%) to the NTS group and 2138 (24%) to the miscellaneous group. There was a significant decrease in the proportion of TS publications [61% in 2007, 44% in 2016 (P<0.001)], accompanied by a significant increase in the proportion of NTS publications (16% in 2007, 34% in 2016 (P<0,001)] over the course of the last decade. The trend first appeared in 2009 and has been confirmed and reinforced over the ensuing years. The increasing prominence of non-surgical skills represents a major shift in the editorial choices of high impact surgical journals. It highlights the extent to which the surgical community is manifesting increased interest in the perioperative field, which is now drawing almost as much attention as surgical procedure per se.

Analysis of Authorship in Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery: Women Remain Underrepresented

IntroductionGiven the need to increase female representation in hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery, as well as the need to increase the academic pipeline of women in this subspecialty, we sought to characterize the prevalence of female authorship in the HPB literature. In particular, the objective of the current study was to determine the proportion of women who published HPB research articles as first, second, or last author over the last decade. MethodsAll articles pertaining to hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery appearing in seven surgical journals (Annals of Surgery, British Journal of Surgery, JAMA Surgery, Annals of Surgical Oncology, HPB (Oxford), Surgery, and Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery) were reviewed for the years 2008 and 2018. Information on sex of author, country of author’s institution, and article type was collected and entered into a computerized database. ResultsAmong the 1473 index articles included in the final analytic cohort, 414 (28%) publications had a woman as the first or last author, while the vast majority (n = 1,059, 72%) had a man as the first or last author. The number of female first authors increased from 15.6% (n = 92/591) in 2008 to 25.7% (n = 227/882) in 2018 (p < 0.001). There were no differences in the proportion of second (n = 123/536, 23.0% vs n = 214/869, 24.6%, p = 0.47) or last (n = 44/564, 7.8% vs n = 88/875, 10.1%, p = 0.15) authors. Women were more likely to publish papers appearing in medium-impact journals (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.04–1.88) and articles with a female author were more likely to be from a North American institution (referent: North America, Asia OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31–0.59 vs Europe OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51–0.87). ConclusionWomen first/last authors in HPB research articles have increased over the past 10 years from 22 to 32%. Women as last authors remain low, however, as only 1 in 10 papers had a senior woman author. These data should prompt HPB leaders to find solutions to the gap in female authorship including mentorship of young female researchers and surgeons.

Beyond demographics: Missing sociodemographics in surgical research

IntroductionReporting sociodemographic data in research is critical to describe participants, and to identify contributing factors for patient experience, outcomes and heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE). Social determinants of health and clinical health characteristics are important drivers of outcomes, and prospective studies collecting participant-reported data offer an opportunity to report these sociodemographics and evaluate for associations with outcomes. Clinical trials have underreported these factors previously, but reporting has not been examined in surgical research. MethodsWe reviewed prospective studies collecting participant-reported sociodemographic data from four surgical journals in 2016. The proportion of studies reporting variables of interest in “Table 1” is described. Variables included information on patient identity (e.g., age, sex), clinical health (e.g., disease-specific characteristics, BMI), individual-level (e.g., education, income) and interpersonal-level (e.g., marital status, support) risk factors. ResultsForty-one publications met inclusion criteria. All reported ≥1 patient identity variable, 93% reported ≥1 clinical characteristic, 63% reported ≥1 individual-level risk factor, and 7% reported an interpersonal-level risk factor. Age, sex, and disease-specific characteristics were reported most commonly (98%, 98%, 88% respectively). 40% of studies reported comorbidities, though <15% reported on mental health. 50% reported race, 27% reported ethnicity, 24% reported education level, and 22% reported functional status. Other examined factors were reported in <20% of publications. DiscussionSociodemographics reported in these surgical journals may be insufficient to describe the participants studied. This highlights an opportunity for the surgical research community to develop consensus on reporting of important sociodemographics that may be drivers of patient experience, outcomes and HTE.

Review of Surgical Education Research Trends in North America

The purpose of this study was to synthesize surgical education research literature over the last decade and to address the following questions: (1) What are the most common subjects studied? (2) What research designs and data-gathering strategies are commonly employed? (3) Where are these papers being published? (4) What subject and research design trends have emerged in the last decade? A literature review was conducted on surgical education publications from January 2008 to July 2018, using the search terms, "Graduate Medical Education," and "General Surgery." Inclusion criteria included articles published in the United States and Canada specific to general surgery and graduate medical education. A total of 1043 articles met inclusion criteria and were categorized according to year published, journal type, journal of publication, subject of research, research design, and data collection method. The following observations were noted: (1) curriculum/teaching remains the most common subject of surgical education research, with growing emphasis on program evaluation, well-being, duty hours, and case exposure. (2) Descriptive research is the most common, although qualitative and mixed methods research is becoming more common. (3) Online surveys are the most common data collection method as they are the quickest way to gather data but there is an increasing use of interviews as support for qualitative research grows. and (4) Surgical education papers are largely published in journals specifically designed for education, and have slowly grown in popularity in generalized surgical journals. As surgical education continues to develop as a field, we anticipate further acceptance of qualitative research in major peer-reviewed surgical journals, increased emphasis on resident well-being, and more effective use of interviews and mixed methods including online resources for data collection.

George Washington Frost Mellen and Resuscitation with Nitrous Oxide in 1847

In The Boston Medical and Surgical Journal of 1847 (later to be called The New England Journal of Medicine), Boston chemist George Washington Frost Mellen claimed that inhaled nitrous oxide gas supports human life in the manner of oxygen gas, and he proposed the use of nitrous oxide in resuscitation from drowning and from carbon monoxide poisoning. The claim was reprinted in at least one dental journal and was long cited as justification for the use of 100% nitrous oxide for inhaled anesthesia. Advocates included anesthesia pioneer and painless dentist Gardner Quincy Colton. Though misguided as to nitrous oxide, Mellen was a prominent member of the Boston community for the abolition of slavery.

Nonoperative management of solid abdominal organ injuries: From past to present.

Today, a significant proportion of solid abdominal organ injuries, whether caused by penetrating or blunt trauma, are managed nonoperatively. However, the controversy over operative versus nonoperative management started more than a hundred years ago. The aim of this review is to highlight some of the key past observations and summarize the current knowledge and guidelines in the management of solid abdominal organ injuries. A non-systematic search through historical articles and references on the management practices of abdominal injuries was conducted utilizing early printed volumes of major surgical and medical journals from the late 19th century onwards. Until the late 19th century, the standard treatment of penetrating abdominal injuries was nonoperative. The first article advocating formal laparotomy for abdominal gunshot wounds was published in 1881 by Sims. After World War I, the policy of mandatory laparotomy became standard practice for penetrating abdominal trauma. During the latter half of the 20th century, the concept of selective nonoperative management, initially for anterior abdominal stab wounds and later also gunshot wounds, was adopted by major trauma centers in South Africa, the United States, and little later in Europe. In blunt solid abdominal organ injuries, the evolution from surgery to nonoperative management in hemodynamically stable patients aided by the development of modern imaging techniques was rapid from 1980s onwards. With the help of modern imaging techniques and adjunctive radiological and endoscopic interventions, a major shift from mandatory to selective surgical approach to solid abdominal organ injuries has occurred during the last 30-50 years.

Compliance of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in General Surgical Journals With the CONSORT 2010 Statement.

Compliance of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in General Surgical Journals With the CONSORT 2010 Statement.

Commentary on "Compliance of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in General Surgical Journals With the CONSORT 2010 Statement".

Commentary on "Compliance of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in General Surgical Journals With the CONSORT 2010 Statement".

Commentary on “Compliance of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in General Surgical Journals With the CONSORT 2010 Statement”

Commentary on “Compliance of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in General Surgical Journals With the CONSORT 2010 Statement”

Announcement: International Meeting of Anatomia Clinica &amp; International Symposium of Clinical and Applied Anatomy (ISCAA), 24th to 26th June 2019, Madrid, Spain

Dear colleagues, We are happy to announce that Abstract Submission and Registration to the International Meeting of Anatomia Clinica (European Association of Clinical Anatomist, EACA) and the International Symposium of Clinical and Applied Anatomy (ISCAA), which will take place from 24th to 26th June 2019 in Madrid (Spain) is now open. Visit www.eaca2019.com to get an account which will allow you to submit abstracts, register to the meeting. Deadline for receipt of abstracts – 11 April 2019 The accepted abstracts will be published in the Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy journal. We look forward to meeting you all in Madrid, June 2019 for an enjoyable Meeting! Sincerely, Prof. Jose Sanuso

The quality of systematic reviews addressing peripheral nerve repair and reconstruction

While systematic reviews are regarded as the strongest level of medical evidence, inconsistency in the quality and rigor of systematic reviews raises concerns about their use as a tool in guiding quality delivery in evidence-based clinical practice. The objective of this present study was to assess methodological soundness of systematic reviews with a particular focus on peripheral nerve repair and reconstruction. We performed a comprehensive search using PubMed and Scopus to identify all systematic reviews published on peripheral nerve reconstruction in 9 high-impact surgical journals. Two authors independently performed literature searches, screened abstracts, and extracted data. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consensus. The quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR criteria. Initial search retrieved 184 articles. After screening duplicates, titles, abstracts, and conducting full text reviews, 26 studies met inclusion criteria. Of those, 18 (65%) were published by Plastic Surgery, 7 (27%) by Orthopedic Surgery, and 1 (4%) by Occupational Therapy. The total number of systematic reviews published on peripheral nerves each year has shown an increasing trend from 2004 through 2015. The overall median AMSTAR score was 5, reflecting a "fair" quality. There was no evidence of AMSTAR score improvement over time. Although the number of systematic reviews published on peripheral nerve repair has risen over the last decade, their quality has not exhibited the same increase. This highlights the necessity to increase familiarity with and conform to methodological quality criteria in order to improve the integrity of evidence-based medicine in peripheral nerve repair and reconstruction.

The Impact of Specialization in Journal Networks and Scholarship

The use of bibliometrics to evaluate authors, institutions, and journals faces significant challenges in comparing biomedical specialties because of marked differences among fields. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of specialty field and physician numbers on bibliometric parameters. For this bibliometric analysis, data from MDLinx.com and SCImago Journal & Country Rank for 2016 were used to rank the journals. The 2015 Physician Specialty Data Report provided the number of specialists in specific fields. We assessed the means for bibliometric parameters across medical and surgical specialties. A total of 904 journals within 25 medical and surgical specialties were identified. Medical specialty journals had higher average total citations than did surgical specialty journals (8360 ± 16082 vs. 6217 ± 8743; P= 0.01). Medical specialties with the highest impact factor were oncology (7.8 ± 20.7), psychiatry (4.6 ± 4.0), and neurology (4.4 ± 4.1), whereas surgical specialties were led by urology (2.9 ± 3.3), cardiothoracic surgery (2.9 ± 2.7), and general surgery (2.6 ± 1.7). Impact factor and Eigenfactor score (a measure of both journal citations and caliber) were strongly correlated (r= 0.84, P= 0.0001). Comparison of impact factor per total physicians in the specialty suggested that top-ranked specialty journals were in allergy/immunology, pulmonology, and cardiothoracic surgery. Mean Eigenfactor score per total physicians showed that top journals were in cardiothoracic surgery, rheumatology, and pulmonary medicine. Journal bibliometrics, which may strongly influence professional advancement and grant funding, show dramatic differences in ranking after accounting for specialty and physician population. Improved analysis and understanding of available bibliometrics, including their limitations, are necessary to appreciate their role in measuring scholarship.

Correlation Between Cost of Publication and Journal Impact. Comprehensive Cross-sectional Study of Exclusively Open-Access Surgical Journals

As open-access journals have become increasingly common, it has provided more options for researchers to publish their work and improved access of information to the public. However, some open-access journals charge the authors processing fee on submission. In certain cases, this can be rather expensive. This study is the first study to specifically assess the cost of publishing in exclusively open-access, peer-reviewed surgical journals, and their correlation with journal impact, in the form of 6 bibliometrics. This is a cross-sectional study. A list of journals is compiled using the SCImago Journal & Country Rank and Directory of Open Access Journals. 6 indices are measured - impact factor, SCOPUS h-index, SCImago journal rank indicator (SJR), Eigenfactor, Article Influence Score and Google h5 index. The cost of publication (in USD$) of a research article (maximum of 6 pages) is used as a baseline. 89 research journals are included. The median cost of publication is USD$100 (range [0-2580]). 47% are free of charge. 13% can cost more than USD$2000 per article. SJR and Google h5 index appear to be the only indices that correlate linearly with the cost (p = 0.015 and 0.041, respectively), although the correlations are weak. 3 indices, namely impact factor, SJR and Article Influence Score appear to have very strong correlations with each other (Pearson coefficient > 0.90). From this study, the cost of publishing in open-access journals bears little correlation to their impact; this poses a dilemma for researchers without significant funding. Therefore, authors and funders must consider cautiously when submitting to these journals.

Reporting of Sex as a Variable in Research Published in Surgical Journals

Reporting of Sex as a Variable in Research Published in Surgical Journals

Comparison of Impact Factor, Eigenfactor Metrics, and SCImago Journal Rank Indicator and h-index for Neurosurgical and Spinal Surgical Journals

In academic specialties such as neurosurgery, bibliometrics are often used to guide readers, academic institutes, and researchers to make objective assessment of journals. Recently, new indices have been developed to overcome the shortcomings of the widely used Impact Factor. The objective of our study was to investigate the correlations among 6 of the commonly used bibliometric indices (Impact Factor, SCImago Journal indicator, SCOPUS h-index, Google h-index, Eigenfactor, Article Influence Score) in neurosurgical and spinal surgical journals. A list of all neurosurgical and spinal surgical journals was compiled using the databases of SCOPUS, Clarivate Analytics (Thomson Reuters), and National Library of Medicine Catalog. Journals that are not surgically oriented, non-English journals, and nursing journals were excluded. Bivariate Spearman ranking correlation tests were performed. Fifty-four journals were included, of which 14 were spine themed. High positive correlations were obtained among the bibliometric indices of neurosurgical (nonspinal) journals (P < 0.05 in all pairs). Median values were 1.54, 0.66, 53, 25, 0.0035, and 0.46 for Impact Factor, SCImago Journal rank indicator, SCOPUS h-index, Google h-index, Eigenfactor, and Article Influence Score, respectively. However, the correlations for spinal surgical journals were more variable, likely because of the small sample size. Despite the different mathematical basis among the citation-based bibliometric indices studied, they have strong correlations in ranking neurosurgical journals. This study provides evidence that the newer indices may be used interchangeably with the Impact Factor in this context, and they may, theoretically, mitigate some the shortcomings of the Impact Factor.

Does open-access provide an opportunity or pose a barrier? A comprehensive survey on the cost of publication in exclusively open-access surgical journals

Does open-access provide an opportunity or pose a barrier? A comprehensive survey on the cost of publication in exclusively open-access surgical journals

Compliance of randomised controlled trials in general surgical journals with the CONSORT 2010 statement: A retrospective cohort study and review of the literature

Compliance of randomised controlled trials in general surgical journals with the CONSORT 2010 statement: A retrospective cohort study and review of the literature

The 100 Most Cited Articles on Healthcare Simulation: A Bibliometric Review.

This article provides an overview and synthesis of the 100 most cited healthcare simulation publications to provide insight into the articles that have shaped current knowledge and practice. Searches of the Scopus and Web of Science databases were conducted in July 2017. Most articles were concerned with medical education and training (86%) and were most often published in surgical journals (33%). Manikins (20%), standardized patients (16%), inanimate part-task trainers (16%), fully simulated environments (17%), and virtual reality part-task trainers (14%) were the most commonly featured types of simulators. Healthcare simulation research has matured and grown during the preceding decades. There has been a move away from research questions focused on "does simulation work?" to an assessment of the conditions under which simulation is most effective. It is hoped that providing an overview of highly cited works will help identify topics for further research.