Recent trends in publications of US vascular surgery program directors

Le résumé fourni par la source

Objective In order to examine the academic productivity of US vascular surgery program directors, the number of vascular publications listed in PubMed from 2001 to 2015 for US vascular surgery program directors was reviewed. We suggest that this can be used as a benchmark for academic productivity. Methods The names of the program directors were taken from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) website at two time points: December 2009 (Independent Programs) and December 2015 (Independent + Integrated). This was used to query PubMed, which listed 5196 publications: 3284 from 2001 to 2009 and 1912 from 2010 to 2015. Results There were 104 program directors (2001–2009) and 114 program directors (2010–2015) with average number of publications in PubMed per program director as 3.68/year (SD ± 2.31) and 2.80/year (SD ± 2.73), respectively ( P = .01). From 2001 to 2009, 1215 (37%) and in 2010 to 2015, 860 (45%) of the publications were from Journal of vascular surgery. The top third produced 67% and 69% of publications in the two time-points. No statistical difference was ascertained regionally: northeast, southeast, midwest and west ( P = .46). The numbers of publications/year decreased by 17% compared to first 10 years. From 2001 to 2009, there were no programs with no publications which increased to five and three with no Journal of Vascular Surgery publications which increased to 21 in 2010–2015. The independent and integrated program directors published average of 2.85 (SD ± 2.69) and 3.47 (SD ± 3.1) total publications; 1.25 (SD ± 1.4) and 3.47 (SD ± 1.7) Journal of Vascular Surgery papers/year, respectively ( P = .28, P = .23). Changes in the study subject were noted by percentage of total publications: endovascular lower extremity arterial (4.7% to 8.9%), Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) (4.5% to 9.9%), Arterio-Venous (AV) access (0.0% to 3.0%), basic science (14.7% to 6.8%), open thoracic (3.0% to 0.6%). Conclusion There seems to be a significant decline in the number of publications over the last 15 years. Yet, the subject of the publications has progressed from Open to TEVAR with an increase in endovascular publications. However, basic science publications reduced by half.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.