0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letter |

Changing Trends in Surgical Research An Analysis of 30 Years of Collaborative Practices FREE

Jennifer C. Goldsack, MChem, MA, MS1; Seema S. Sonnad, PhD1
[+] Author Affiliations
1The Value Institute, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, Delaware
JAMA Surg. 2014;149(8):873-874. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2014.97.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Rapid increases in the number of remote collaborations over the last 20 years are well documented in many scientific disciplines and nonsurgical medical specialties,1,2 but to our knowledge there are no published studies examining trends in remote collaborations in surgery. Both the scientific research among surgeons3 and the National Institutes of Health funding to academic surgeons relative to their nonsurgical colleagues4,5 have declined in recent years. Simultaneously, institutions are requiring surgeons to spend increasing amounts of time in the operating room to bolster revenue. Yet, in this era of evidence-based medicine, surgeons require research conducted at the highest level to support their clinical decisions.

Therefore, it is critical to better understand how surgeons are responding to the competing pressures of reduced time and funding for research and increasing demand for clinical evidence. Using results of an analysis of 30 years of publications in 2 preeminent surgery journals, we assessed the trends in collaboration in surgical research.

We selected 2 high-impact general surgery journals, the Annals of Surgery and JAMA Surgery (formerly Archives of Surgery). These monthly, general interest surgery journals publish both basic science and clinical research. The study sample comprised 3 randomly selected issues for each year from each journal for the period from 1984 to 2012. The study goal was to identify the prevalence of remote collaboration among authors of original research studies in the selected issues. Remote collaboration was defined as coauthors with listed institutional affiliations in at least 2 different metropolitan areas. The analysis also tracked trends in sole authorship and changes in local collaboration at an interdepartmental and interinstitutional level. Two-sided Cochrane-Armitage trend tests provided significance levels for changing proportions of collaboration over time.

The study sample included 2218 surgical research articles published between 1984 and 2012. There was a highly significant increase in the number of articles with remote collaboration (P < .001), from 9.59% of articles in 1984 to 39.87% in 2012 (Figure). The number of articles with local interdepartmental and interinstitutional collaborations also increased significantly, from 33.77% to 38.41% of all articles and from 40.43% to 64.84% of those articles not written by remote collaborators (P < .001), mirroring the decreasing number of articles written by 1 author (P < .001).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.
Proportion of Articles Written by Remote Collaborators in Surgery Journals, 1984-2012
Graphic Jump Location

Our results indicate that “knowledge production” in the field of surgery has changed dramatically over the last 30 years. Little surgical research is being published by individual investigators, but there have been significant increases in the number of surgical research teams comprising investigators from different departments, local institutions, and remote institutions. This may reflect the increased need for multicenter collaborations to enroll adequate numbers of participants and to recruit a more generalizable patient population. It likely also indicates the increasing level of complexity seen in surgical research, which increasingly requires collaboration between surgeons and other experts, such as internists, radiologists, anesthesiologists, biostatisticians, engineers, physicists, and economists, to form interdisciplinary teams.

Despite advances in communication technology, collaboration at a distance remains substantially more difficult than collaboration among researchers who are co-located.6 We believe that surgeon-researchers should be commended for rising to the challenge of providing research aligned with the needs and goals of a new culture of evidence-based medicine. Despite the reduced research funding compared with their nonsurgical counterparts, the increased pressure to spend more time in the operating room, and the difficulties of collaborating at a distance, surgeons are finding ways of responding to the increasing need for new knowledge.

Corresponding Author: Jennifer C. Goldsack, MChem, MA, MS, The Value Institute, Christiana Care Health System, 4755 Ogletown-Stanton Rd, Newark, DE 19718 (jgoldsack@christianacare.org).

Published Online: June 18, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2014.97.

Author Contributions: Ms Goldsack had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: All authors.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Goldsack.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Sonnad.

Statistical analysis: Sonnad.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Goldsack.

Study supervision: Sonnad.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Regalado  A.  Multiauthor papers on the rise. Science. 1995;268(5207):25.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Weeks  WB, Wallace  AE, Kimberly  BC.  Changes in authorship patterns in prestigious US medical journals. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59(9):1949-1954.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Jackler  RK.  The decline of scientific research among surgeons: a plea to swim against the tide. Ann R Coll Surg Engl (Suppl). 2012;94(8):266-267. doi:10.1308/147363512X13311314197419.
Link to Article
Mann  M, Tendulkar  A, Birger  N, Howard  C, Ratcliffe  MB.  National Institutes of Health funding for surgical research. Ann Surg. 2008;247(2):217-221.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Rangel  SJ, Efron  B, Moss  RL.  Recent trends in National Institutes of Health funding of surgical research. Ann Surg. 2002;236(3):277-286, discussion 286-287.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kraut  RE, Fussel  SR, Brennan  SE, Siegel  J. Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. In: Hinds  PJ, Kiesler  S, eds. Distributed Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2002:137-165.

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.
Proportion of Articles Written by Remote Collaborators in Surgery Journals, 1984-2012
Graphic Jump Location

Tables

References

Regalado  A.  Multiauthor papers on the rise. Science. 1995;268(5207):25.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Weeks  WB, Wallace  AE, Kimberly  BC.  Changes in authorship patterns in prestigious US medical journals. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59(9):1949-1954.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Jackler  RK.  The decline of scientific research among surgeons: a plea to swim against the tide. Ann R Coll Surg Engl (Suppl). 2012;94(8):266-267. doi:10.1308/147363512X13311314197419.
Link to Article
Mann  M, Tendulkar  A, Birger  N, Howard  C, Ratcliffe  MB.  National Institutes of Health funding for surgical research. Ann Surg. 2008;247(2):217-221.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Rangel  SJ, Efron  B, Moss  RL.  Recent trends in National Institutes of Health funding of surgical research. Ann Surg. 2002;236(3):277-286, discussion 286-287.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kraut  RE, Fussel  SR, Brennan  SE, Siegel  J. Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. In: Hinds  PJ, Kiesler  S, eds. Distributed Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2002:137-165.

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

469 Views
2 Citations
×

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Evidence to Support the Update

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Original Article: Does This Patient Have an Instability of the Shoulder or a Labrum Lesion?