Search

Introduction: With the advent of social media and the associated increase in connectivity between scientists and the lay public, the Altmetric Attention Score has been created as a way to measure these interactions between scholarly publications and media dissemination. Little is known, however, whether these types of media exchanges measured by Altmetrics may serve as a proxy for public engagement. As such, we have sought to determine whether or not an association exists between Altmetric scores and public engagement, as measured by article citation in a health policy document., Methods: The top 100 highest scoring articles in the medical and health sciences with respect to Altmetric Attention Scores were selected from each of 3 y (2014, 2015, and 2016). Each article was then matched to an article from the same year and journal with the highest Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) for comparison. Bivariate analysis compared article groups with respect to citation in a public policy document, open-access status, and funding status, as well as Altmetric and RCR scores. A multivariable model was then constructed to identify significant factors associated with citation in a public policy document. Finally, a contour plot was generated in order to estimate the interaction between Altmetric Scores and RCR and their comparative effects on the probability of inclusion in a health policy document., Results: Of the 600 articles included in the analysis, 286 (48%) had been cited by a public policy article. The only difference that existed between the cohorts was for funding status, with 55 articles (40%) in the RCR cohort having received funding compared to 81 (60%) in the Altmetric cohort (P = 0.011). On bivariate analysis, both Altmetric (P = 0.0018) and RCR (P < 0.0001) scores were independently predictive of policy citation. In a multivariable model, the interaction between Altmetric Scores and RCR with respect to policy inclusion was significant (OR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.08-1.38) and a contour plot demonstrates that either high Altmetric score or RCR alone is sufficient to generate a high probability of policy inclusion., Conclusions: Scholarly article Altmetric Scores may serve as a novel means to explore public engagement in scientific research and health policy. In addition, journals that aim to impact public policy through article dissemination may benefit from engagement in social media avenues in addition to traditional citation pathways in order to encourage broader inclusion., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinicians and medical researchers increasingly turn to nonformal online platforms to promote research. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a quantitative measurement of online influence of research in real time. The objective of this study is to determine if AAS correlates with traditional bibliometrics in the orthopaedic literature., Materials and Methods: From the 15 orthopaedic journals with the highest impact factor, the 10 most cited articles from each journal were reviewed for 2014 -2017. For each article, AAS was collected using the Altmetric Bookmarklet application and citation count from SCOPUS. Journal impact factor was recorded using Journal Citation Reports. Statistical analysis included Pearson's and Spearman's correlation coefficients., Results: A total of 600 articles were analyzed. A significant positive correlation was found between citation count and AAS for 2014 (r = 0.3188, p < 0.0001), and no correlation for 2015 (r = 0.1504, P = 0.0653), 2016 (r = 0.0087, P = 0.9157), and 2017 (r = 0.0061, P = 0.9408). There was no significant correlation between impact factor and AAS in 2014 (r = 0.4312, P = 0.1085), 2015 (r = 0.3850, P = 0.1565), 2016 (r = 0.1460, P = 0.6035) and 2017 (r = 0.0451 P = 0.8732)., Conclusions: AAS and traditional bibliometrics are currently not strongly correlated in orthopaedic literature. Citations take years to accumulate and AAS represents immediate influence of an article. An amalgamation of traditional bibliometrics and AAS may prove useful in determining the short- and long-term impact and influence of publications in orthopaedics., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Understanding the differences between articles that amass a high number of citations and those that receive very few allows investigators to write journal articles that maximize the impact of their research. There are minimal data regarding these two cohorts in the cardiothoracic surgery literature., Methods: We identified all primary research articles from 1998 to 2008 from The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, The Journal of Cardiac Surgery, The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, and The European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (n = 4276). Eighty-seven of these articles accrued 0 or only 1 citation within 10 y of publication. We compared this "low citation" cohort to the "high citation" cohort made up of the 87 highest-cited articles from the same journals over the same time period., Results: When compared with the low-citation articles, high-citation articles were significantly more likely to be clinical in nature (P < 0.0001), have observational study design (P < 0.0001), involve multidisciplinary authorship (P < 0.0001), and have more funding reported (P = 0.0039). With regard to technical aspects of the article, the high-citation articles were likely to have longer titles (P = 0.0086), punctuation in the title (P = 0.0027), longer abstracts (P = 0.0007), more words in the manuscript (P < 0.0001), more authors (P < 0.0001), more declared conflict of interests (P = 0.0167), more references (P < 0.0001), more tables (P < 0.0001), more figures (P = 0.0024), and more pages (P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the year of publication among both cohorts., Conclusions: This review suggests that there are several important distinguishing characteristics that should be considered by investigators when designing and implementing cardiothoracic research studies to maximize the impact of their published research., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although controversial, the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) for abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) is increasing. There are now many different ADMs available, but there is a lack of studies directly comparing ADMs in terms of outcomes., Materials and Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed to compare perioperative wound complications (up to 120 d postoperatively) between patients who underwent AWR with the human noncrosslinked ADMs Alloderm or Cortiva from January 2012 to March 2020. Surgical technique uniformly consisted of open component separation, onlay implantation of ADM, and progressive tension suture fixation of ADM., Results: After exclusions, 53 patients were in the Alloderm group, and 29 patients were in the Cortiva group. The overall perioperative wound complication rate between Alloderm (51.92%) and Cortiva (72.41%) was not significantly different (P = 0.09921). The average follow-up for Alloderm was 76.69 ± 29.52 d and for Cortiva was 66.93 ± 35.16 d (P = 0.2088). There were no cases that required explantation of ADM., Conclusions: Given the similar perioperative wound complication profiles, the more cost-effective ADM may be a consideration for use in AWR. The fact that there were zero instances of ADM explantation also supports the use of ADM in these high-risk cases., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a variety of challenges in the medical education curriculum, one of which is the possible loss of summer and fall away rotations for fourth year students applying into surgical subspecialties. Subsequently, a lack of in-person evaluations may have a major impact on an applicant's perception of the residency and the program's ability to assess the individual applicant. This is especially crucial for applicants without a home program in their specialty of interest, as away rotations are an important opportunity to confirm interest in pursuit of a subspecialty, obtain letters of recommendation, and make positive impressions at programs of interest. The objective of this article is to assess the current COVID-19 pandemic situation in light of away rotations and to provide recommendations for surgical subspecialty programs and applicants to have the best outcome during this upcoming application cycle. In particular, we emphasize the importance of implementing universal processes within each individual subspecialty. This will provide equitable opportunities for all applicants, minimizing potential biases or disadvantages based on geographic location or availability of a program at an applicant's home institution., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is a paucity of research comparing journal articles that accrue numerous citations with those that accrue few citations over time. Understanding differences between journal articles can help direct investigators in designing and conducting their research., Methods: Using advanced bibliometric tools, we queried four plastic surgery journals (Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, and Microsurgery) for primary research articles published between 1998 and 2008 accruing zero or one citations with at least a 10-y lag time. Forty-seven articles were identified as low citation and were compared with an equal number of articles in the same journals that accrued the highest number of citations in the same period as high citation (HC). The data were analyzed using Student t-tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, chi-square tests, and Fisher exact tests. The level of significance was established at P < 0.05., Results: When compared with the HC cohort, the low citation articles were more likely to be nonclinical (P < 0.001), have no plastic surgery authors (P = 0.0026), and focus on the field of microsurgery (P = 0.003). The HC cohort was more likely to have higher sample sizes (P = 0.0339), focus on aesthetic/cosmetic surgery (P = 0.003), have a higher number of other disciplines included on authorship (P < 0.001), references (P = 0.0451), manuscript pages (P < 0.001), and words in the abstract (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: A small number of articles published in four plastic surgery journals were uncited during a 10-y period. There are qualitative and quantitative differences between highly and lowly cited articles in the plastic surgery literature. Investigators should consider these differences when designing and conducting studies., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Citation count is a common bibliometric tool used to determine the long-term impact and performance of journal articles. Many of the other potential factors associated with highly and lowly cited articles in the general surgery literature, however, remain unknown. The purpose of this study was to attempt to identify characteristics of articles that may predict or correlate with article citation counts and, consequently, article impact., Methods: We identified articles from Annals of Surgery, British Journal of Surgery, and Journal of the American College of Surgeons between 1998 and 2008 that had 0-5 total citations. We then matched these articles to an identical number of the highest cited articles from these same journals for comparison. Student's t-tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, chi-squared tests, and Fisher's exact tests were used to determine the significance of difference between data sets at a predetermined level of significance set to P < 0.05., Results: Significant differences of article characteristics between the two cohorts included higher prevalence of clinical studies (P = 0.3919), multi-institutional (P = 0.0007) and multi-national (P = 0.0023) studies, surgical oncology (P < 0.0001) or hepatobiliary focus (P < 0.0001) and published in Annals of Surgery (P < 0.0001) for the highly cited cohort. Highly cited articles were also more likely to have larger sample sizes (P = 0.0009), more authors (P < 0.0001), presence of statistically significant results (P < 0.0001), more references (P < 0.0001), more tables (P < 0.0001), more figures (P = 0.0001), and higher word counts for manuscript (P < 0.0001), abstract (P < 0.0001), and title (P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: There are a relatively small number of articles with 0-5 citations after 10 y for these major general surgery journals. This indicates that journals are consistently able to select articles that will be impactful in aiding future research. Certain factors, however, are associated with being highly cited as opposed to lowly cited, and an understanding of these factors can aid researchers and journals in designing and reporting future studies., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: With the emergence of social media platforms, new bibliometric profiles measuring impact and exposure of scientific research online have been introduced as an alternative to traditional bibliometric outcomes. The objective of this article is to evaluate relationships between Altmetric scores, journal impact factor, and citation counts among the surgical literature., Methods: We analyzed the top 10 highest cited articles for the 10 general surgery journals with the highest impact factors for 2013 and 2016 by noting citation counts and Altmetric scores for each article. We also identified the journal impact factor and age of journal associated Twitter accounts. Variables were assessed for correlation using Pearson's correlation testing via Microsoft Excel., Results: A total of 240 articles were analyzed. For 2013, Altmetrics score analysis demonstrated a significant, positive correlation with citation number (r = 0.462, P < 0.0001) and journal impact factor (r = 0.439, P < 0.0001). The 2016 cohort also demonstrated significant, positive correlations between Altmetric scores and citation count after the removal of one outlier (r = 0.182, P = 0.047) and journal impact factor when considering all articles (r = 0.425, P < 0.0001). From 2013 to 2016, the total number of citations for all articles decreased from 11,027 to 7661, but cumulative Altmetric scores increased from 1078 to 4782. Age of creation for a journal's Twitter account did not significantly affect Altmetric score or traditional bibliometric measures in either 2013 (r = 0.370, P = 0.293) or 2016 (r = 0.441, P = 0.202)., Conclusions: Altmetric scores, while significantly associated with citation count in the surgical literature, should not necessarily be used as a surrogate marker for evaluating research performance, impact, or exposure. It is possible, however, that as the use of social media for distributing and sharing scientific research continues to expand, that exposure on such platforms could impact future interest or studies., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The purpose of this research is to investigate peer-to-peer sexual violence victimization and perpetration among male and female adolescents in a large, racially and economically diverse, community-based sample. Using cross-sectional data over a four-year period (2009-2013) from a regional sample of middle school and high school students in southeastern Michigan, we examined the prevalence and correlates of peer-to-peer sexual violence victimization and perpetration among adolescents. 33.9% of males and 53.5% of females reported sexual violence victimization, while 22.8% of males and 12.6% of females reported sexual violence perpetration. The majority of peer-to-peer sexual victimization and perpetration occurred by someone of the opposite sex, however, same-sex victimization and perpetration were not uncommon. Substance use, depression, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and conduct disorder were associated with peer-to-peer sexual violence (victimization or perpetration) for both males and females, with few differences in the patterns of associations by sex. These findings are an important step in better understanding the types of peer-to-peer sexual violence that adolescents experience and risk factors for both male and female youth., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

E-cigarette use among adolescents has increased significantly in recent years, but it remains unclear whether cigarette smoking behaviors and intentions for future cigarette smoking differ among current (i.e., 30-day) non-users, only e-cigarette users, only cigarette smokers, and dual users. A nationally representative sample of 4385 U.S. high school seniors were surveyed during the spring of their senior year via self-administered questionnaires in 2014. An estimated 9.6% of U.S. high school seniors reported current e-cigarette use only, 6.3% reported current cigarette smoking only, and 7.2% reported current dual use of e-cigarettes and cigarette smoking. There were no significant differences between current only cigarette smokers and dual users in the odds of early onset of cigarette smoking, daily cigarette smoking, intentions for future cigarette smoking, friends' cigarette smoking behaviors, attempts to quit cigarette smoking, or the inability to quit cigarette smoking. Adolescents who only used e-cigarettes had higher odds of intentions for future cigarette smoking in the next 5years (AOR=2.57, 95% CI: 1.21-5.24) than current non-users. Dual users and only cigarette smokers had higher odds of cigarette smoking behaviors and intentions for future cigarette smoking than non-users or only e-cigarette users. Adolescents who engage in current dual use have cigarette smoking behaviors and intentions for future cigarette smoking that more closely resemble cigarette smokers than e-cigarette users. Adolescents who only use e-cigarettes have higher intentions to engage in future cigarette smoking relative to their peers who do not engage in e-cigarette use or cigarette smoking., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)