Search

Background: The h-index is used as an objective measure of research impact. Its validity, however, is not known in the context of general surgery and comparisons with other bibliometric indices are lacking. We sought to evaluate the h-index as a reliable and valid measure of research performance in general surgery across 6 universities in the province of Ontario, Canada. Methods: Bibliometric indices for 219 faculty members in general surgery were calculated using the Scopus and Web of Science online databases. We investigated agreement between the databases. A 2-way analysis of variance was used to compare the h-index of surgeons grouped by institutional affiliation and academic rank and to identify the relative impact of these factors on different bibliometric indices. Results: The agreement on h-indices between the Scopus and Web of Science was problematic. The h-index was associated more strongly with academic rank (academic rank accounted for 33.3% of researcher’s h-index) than of the number of publications (12.5%) or the number of citations per author (10.2%). The number of citations per paper was not associated with academic rank. The institutional affiliation affected bibliometric indices to a similar degree to academic rank. Conclusion: Our data suggest better construct validity for the h-index than for other bibliometrics, although the agreement of h-index values between databases can be problematic for some researchers. The use of the h-index as a criterion-based assessment across different universities is problematic and that it should be used as a normative assessment tool, with comparisons with a specified population of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of published mortality data after bariatric surgery. Methods: The review includes all papers published in English from January 1, 1990 to April 30, 2006, identified through electronic searches in MEDLINE, Current Contents, and the Cochrane Library, supplemented by manual reference checks. All accepted studies were assigned a level of evidence (Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford, UK), and randomized controlled trials were rated for quality using the Jadad scoring method. Random effects meta-analyses were performed. Mortality was analyzed at either ≤30 days or 30 days to 2 years. Results: The data set includes 361 studies with 478 treatment arms and 85,048 patients. At baseline, the mean age was 40.0 years, body mass index was 47.4 kg/m2, 85% were female, and 11.5% had previous bariatric procedures. Meta-analysis of total mortality at ≤30 days was 0.28% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.34) in 475 treatment arms (n = 84,931); total mortality at >30 days to 2 years was 0.35% (95% CI, 0.12-0.58) in 140 treatment arms (n = 19,928). Mortality at ≤30 day for all restrictive procedures was 0.30% (95% CI, 0.15-0.46) for open and 0.07% (95% CI, 0.02-0.12) for laparoscopic procedures; restrictive/malabsorptive (gastric bypass) was 0.41% (95% CI, 0.24-0.58] for open and 0.16% (95% CI, 0.09-0.23) for laparoscopic; and malabsorptive was 0.76% (95% CI, 0.29-1.23) for open and 1.11% (95% CI, 0.00-2.70) for laparoscopic. Subgroup analyses of ≤30-day mortality show a male:female ratio of 4.74:0.13, with 1.25% (95% CI, 0.56-1.94) incidence in the superobese and 0.34% (95% CI, 0.00-1.29) in the elderly (≥65 years). Conclusion: The early and late mortality rates after bariatric surgery are low and can be subjected to risk stratification for comparative analyses and prospective risk assessments. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This article has been retracted at the request of the Editors. Please see http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy. Reason: It has been called to our attention by one of the indentified authors, Dr. Minoru Uematsu of Keio University School of Medicine, that he did not contribute to this paper and was unaware of its submission. In addition, Dr. Uematsu informs us that the data appear to be an updated version without attribution to his presentation at the 22nd Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium December 8–11, 1999 (previously published as an abstract (Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1999; 57:108). Dr. Uematsu also states that the information contained in the SURGERY article is misleading and inaccurate in that the patients were treated with whole breast irradiation in addition to the accelerated partial breast irradiation, a fact that was not stated in the article. The Editors feel that this is a serious misrepresentation of the treatment method. The Editors have contacted Kazuhiko Sato, M.D., Ph.D., who submitted the manuscript for publication and is its first author. Dr. Sato concedes and apologizes for (1) the listing of Dr. Uematsu as an author without his permission, (2) failing to provide the attribution to the original presentation and (3) omitting the crucial fact that conventional whole breast irradiation of 50 Gy was used as a further treatment of patients receiving the APBI. With these facts in hand, it is regrettable but necessary that we retract this article in its entirety. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]