Elsevier

Journal of Pediatric Surgery

Volume 56, Issue 12, December 2021, Pages 2142-2147
Journal of Pediatric Surgery

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

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2021.07.023Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

The 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.

Methods

The 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).

Results

During 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).

Conclusions

This 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.

Introduction

Paediatric surgery is a relatively small craft speciality that emerged out of the field of general surgery in Europe and North America, largely during the 1950s and 1960s with the establishment of professional organisations in the 1950s (e.g. British Association of Paediatric Surgery), and a speciality-dedicated journal (Journal of paediatric Surgery) in 1966. Its surgical remit has always been wide, encompassing for example both fetal surgery and adolescent bariatric surgery at its extremes. Although most academic output in paediatric surgery may be regarded as clinical themed research there has always been a basic science foundation niche to the speciality with a small cadre of university surgeons working in some of the major UK centres.

Academic or research output, whether in an individual surgeon or from a department, can be a difficult concept to define particularly for those outside of a university-setting. Publications can be regarded as one of the key metrics of academic output and "performance". [1,2, 3]. In order to try and define the impact or influence of a publication further metrics have also been devised. The Hirsch h-index - a composite of the number of citations and number of publications - is a validated metric of an individual's academic output which alters during one's professional career [4, 5]. These tools of measurement can also be applied to learned institutions [5] including examining national output(s) within specific subject areas [6].

The current study seeks to provide a contemporary overview of the academic profile of paediatric surgery in the UK .

Section snippets

Two methods were used to ensure complete data capture

A list of all paediatric surgeons working in the 26 UK and N. Ireland paediatric surgical centres was compiled who were active within the period Jan. 2005 – Dec. 2020. The academic search engine Scopus™ (Elsevier) has an abstract and citation database covering over 7000 health science titles which was then used to track an individual's (NHS or university consultant) publication history. Publications were attributed to the senior author and counted only once to calculate the yearly departmental

Results

There were 3838 publications identified from 26 UK paediatric surgical units from Jan. 2005 to Dec. 2020 (Table 1) with the “top ten”units contributing over half of all outputs (n = 2189, 57%). The highest performing unit was Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH), London with 11.8% (n = 454) of the total with Alder Hey Children's Hospital, University Of Liverpool and Kings College Hospital London comprising the ‘ top 3 ‘ UK centres. There was also a clear step-change between positions 10 and 11

Discussion

Academic output is necessarily difficult to quantify but published output is one relatively simple metric that might be thought of as broadly reflective. Clearly it has obvious weaknesses as seen in this current study by equating a case report with a randomised controlled trial, but departments that perform well tend to produce both sorts of output. Furthermore most randomised controlled trials in UK paediatric surgery over the past 15 years have been very much multicentre efforts, albeit

Author declarations

We declare that we have no financial or commercial interest in the contents of this work.

We declare that all authors contributed to the work and are aware of the final submission.

We declare that the work is original and not under consideration elsewhere.

References (31)

  • K.L. McGlone et al.

    Academic productivity among plastic surgery subspecialty fellowship applicants

    Ann Plast Surg

    (2021)
  • J.E. Hirsch

    An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output

    Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

    (2005)
  • F. Friedmacher et al.

    Biliary atresia: a scientometric analysis of the global research architecture and scientific developments

    J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci

    (2019)
  • M.M. Chowdhury et al.

    A systematic review of the impact of volume of surgery and specialization on patient outcome

    Brit J Surg

    (2007)
  • L. Spitz

    Oesophageal atresia

    Orphanet J Rare Dis

    (2007)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text