bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2026–03–22
fourteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. A Relative Authorship Index: A New Metric for Evaluating Individual Contribution in Scientific Research.
  2. Prevalence of hyperprolific authors in sports medicine and musculoskeletal health and implications on research attention.
  3. Bibliometric analysis of Italy's orthopaedics and Sports Medicine research output: Trends, impact, and comparative rankings (1996-2024).
  4. Evaluating the Top Interdisciplinary Authors in Dermatology and Immunology Through Decadal Trend H-Index Analysis of 1980-2024.
  5. Comparison of h-index and other bibliometrics in Google Scholar and Scopus for articles published by translational science trainees.
  6. Gender Differences in Academic Productivity Among Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgeons.
  7. Mapping the academic landscape of PubMed-indexed cardiothoracic surgical research in India: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis.
  8. Identifying the 50 most productive researchers in top-tier, broad-scope educational psychology journals (2017-2022): a new perspective with a focus on publication trends and diversity.
  9. Authorship, titles and open access as drivers of citation performance in orthopaedics: a scientometric analysis.
  10. Tracking Scientific Publications in Non-traditional Academic Medical Centers.
  11. Interdisciplinary papers supported by disciplinary grants garner deep and broad scientific impact.
  12. Hallucinated citations produced by generative artificial intelligence may constitute research misconduct when citations function as data in scholarly papers.
  13. Medical technology consulting among academic vascular surgeons.
  14. Publication rate of endodontic posters presented at the congresses of the College of Italian Dental Professors.
  1. Eur J Neurosci. 2026 Mar;63(6): e70464
    A Relative Authorship Index: A New Metric for Evaluating Individual Contribution in Scientific Research.
    Francesco Siano, Mariella Segreti, Pierpaolo Pani, Emiliano Brunamonti, Aldo Genovesio.
      This study presents the relative authorship index (RAI), a novel metric designed to address the limitations of traditional bibliometric indicators, such as publication counts, citation numbers, and the h-index, by correcting for authorship inflation. Conventional metrics can overestimate productivity by failing to account for the number of co-authors or the possibility of inflated authorship. To detect such inflation, this index evaluates the number of co-authors on a paper relative to the number of authors in the references cited within the same paper, which are assumed to reflect the researcher's specific field of study. By using this field-specific baseline, the index identifies whether a publication involves an unusually high number of co-authors compared to field standards, thus flagging potential authorship inflation. Applied to neuroscience articles authored by researchers affiliated with Italian universities, the index revealed significant regional and university differences, with higher values in southern regions and private universities. A case study of a single department also revealed high variability among individual researchers, indicating that the index can capture consistent patterns in authorship practices. In addition, we propose an authorship correction formula to adjust bibliometric indicators. The formula introduces parameters that penalize authorship inflation based on the RAI and also penalize large co-author counts, with the latter scaled according to whether the researcher occupies key authorship positions (first, last, and/or corresponding author).
    Keywords:  VQR; authorship contribution; authorship index; bibliometrics; pybliometrics; research metrics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.70464
  2. PLoS One. 2026 ;21(3): e0343827
    Prevalence of hyperprolific authors in sports medicine and musculoskeletal health and implications on research attention.
    Serena Uppal, Haneef Khan, Michelle Helen Cruickshank, Michelle Ghert.
       PURPOSE: The phenomenon of hyperprolific authorship has raised concerns about research quality, academic integrity, and the sustainability of publication practices across scientific disciplines. Hyperprolific authors (HA) are defined as those publishing 72 or more papers annually, while almost hyperprolific authors (AHA) publish 61-72. This study aimed to identify and characterize extremely productive (EP) authors, defined as HA and AHA, in sports medicine and musculoskeletal health research and assess their scientific impact.
    METHODS: We analyzed publications from the top 20 CiteScore-ranked journals in sports medicine and musculoskeletal health between 2020 and 2024 using the Scopus database. Authors were classified as HA or AHA based on annual publication volume. Metadata was extracted regarding publication counts, authorship positions, institutional affiliations, and geographic distribution. Citation impact and scholarly attention were evaluated using h-index and total citation counts.
    RESULTS: Among 16,983 articles and 68,209 unique authors, 222 (0.45%) were classified as EP authors (125 HA, 97 AHA). Five authors maintained HA status across all five years, with the most prolific author publishing 1,174 papers and a peak annual output of 262. EP authors were concentrated in Europe (42.3%), Asia (28.4%), and the Americas (22.5%), especially in Germany, Japan, China, and the United States. Most EP authors were middle authors (median 59.8%-60.9%), with low first authorship (1.9%-2.1%) and higher last authorship rates (22.6%-27.0%). Despite concerns about volume, EP authors demonstrated substantial research attention, over their entire career, as measured by citation metrics: mean h-index 79.9 and mean total citations 35,654.
    CONCLUSIONS: Extremely productive authors comprise a small but influential subset of researchers. Their high output is not necessarily at the expense of research attention, but the concentration of productivity among a limited group raises important questions about authorship norms, research equity, and global representation.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343827
  3. J Orthop. 2026 May;75 322-326
    Bibliometric analysis of Italy's orthopaedics and Sports Medicine research output: Trends, impact, and comparative rankings (1996-2024).
    Raju Vaishya, Abhishek Vaish, Gennaro Pipino, Filippo Migliorini.
       Background and aims: Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine (OSM) research plays a central role in advancing musculoskeletal healthcare. Although previous bibliometric studies have evaluated regional and continental trends, a detailed and standardised assessment of Italy's long-term contribution remains limited. This study aimed to comprehensively analyse Italy's OSM research output, impact, and publishing landscape from 1996 to 2024 using harmonised SCImago indicators.
    Methods: A descriptive bibliometric analysis was conducted using data retrieved from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank database, derived from Scopus-indexed sources. Publications classified under the "Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine" category (code 2732) and affiliated with Italy were identified. Annual and cumulative document counts, total citations, self-citations, H-index, and citations per publication (CPP) were extracted. Multinational publications were assigned to Italy based on author affiliation. All data were independently collected and cross-validated by two reviewers. Citation indicators were recalculated to ensure internal consistency.
    Results: Italy's annual OSM output increased from 356 publications in 1996 to 1711 in 2024, corresponding to a 4.8-fold growth and a cumulative total of 22,129 documents. In 2024, Italy ranked ninth globally and fourth in Western Europe, accounting for 9.55% of worldwide output. Impact indicators were substantial, with an H-index of 211, 1845 citations in 2024, and a cumulative CPP exceeding 22, based on more than 504,000 citations. Eleven Italian journals covered all SJR quartiles, led by the Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (Q1, H-index 57).
    Conclusions: Italy demonstrates sustained growth and high international visibility in OSM research. The application of transparent and standardised bibliometric methods strengthens the reliability of these findings and supports their relevance for research policy and strategic planning in European musculoskeletal science.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Citations; H-index; Italy; Orthopaedics; Publications; Sports medicine
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2026.03.003
  4. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2026 ;19 564192
    Evaluating the Top Interdisciplinary Authors in Dermatology and Immunology Through Decadal Trend H-Index Analysis of 1980-2024.
    Megan Lau, Mindy D Szeto, Dev Patel, Lillian Mo, Kathryn Jayne Tan, Ester Del Duca, Robert P Dellavalle, Emma Guttman-Yassky.
       Objective: Previous bibliometric analyses focus on primary specialty, potentially overlooking authors whose contributions span multiple disciplines. Given the increasing recognition of dysregulated immunological processes in dermatological conditions and the targeting of immune pathways in therapeutics, this study aims to evaluate the h-index of authors in both dermatology and immunology, capturing the multifaceted research landscape of dermatology and providing a comprehensive assessment of scholarly impact.
    Methods: A search of the Web of Science (WOS) schema from 1980 to 2024 was conducted using the InCites dataset, limited to original articles, editorial materials, and meeting abstracts, and authors were ranked by InCites h-index.
    Results: Over the past 5 years, the top 20 authors by InCites h-index in dermatology and immunology research were 65% males and 35% females, with USA (30%), Germany (20%), and France (15%) representing the highest proportions of authors. The trends across decades showed increased representation of female authors, presence of institutions outside the United States, and cross-disciplinary productivity in dermatology and immunology.
    Conclusion: The cross-disciplinary associations in dermatology underscore the utility of the h-index in assessing scholarly impact across multiple fields. The observed growth in interdisciplinary productivity and global representation among leading authors reflects translational research exploring immune pathways and molecular profiles that have driven the advancement and translational revolution of immunology-based therapies in dermatology.
    Keywords:  bibliometric analysis; h-index; interdisciplinary citations; scholarly influence
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S564192
  5. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2025 ;pii: 153. [Epub ahead of print]12
    Comparison of h-index and other bibliometrics in Google Scholar and Scopus for articles published by translational science trainees.
    Laura D Davis, Corbyn M Gilmore, Adriana Vargus, Henry Ogbeifun, Yong-Hee P Chun, Christopher R Frei.
      Bibliometrics can help program directors to conduct objective and fair assessments of scholar impact, progress, and collaboration, as well as benchmark performance against peers and programs. However, different academic search engines use different methodologies to provide bibliometric information, so intermixing results from multiple search engines might contribute to inequitable decision-making. Google Scholar and Scopus provide useful bibliometric information for scholars, including the h-index; however, a search of the literature revealed h-index was higher in Google Scholar than Scopus in other scholar populations; therefore, we hypothesized that h-index might also be higher in Google Scholar than Scopus for translational science (TS) trainees. Trained investigators gathered scholarly profile information from Google Scholar and Scopus for all trainees from NIH-supported TS PhD and TS Training (TST) Programs for predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees. Investigators calculated number of citations/year and m-quotient using the data contained therein. M-quotient was defined as h-index divided by "n," where "n" equaled the number of years since first publication. Investigators used the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test to compare bibliometrics (citations, citations/year, h-index, and m-quotient) from both sources for TS students and trainees. A total of 38 trainees (13 TS PhD students and 26 TST trainees) had active profiles in both Google Scholar and Scopus. Of the TST trainees, 21 were predoctoral and five were postdoctoral trainees. All four metrics (citations, citations/year, h-index, and m-quotient) were significantly higher (p<0.05) in Google Scholar than Scopus for the entire study population, TS PhD students, TST trainees, and TST predoctoral trainees. All four bibliometrics were numerically higher (but not significantly higher) in Google Scholar than Scopus for TST postdoctoral trainees as well. This is the first study to compare bibliometrics in Google Scholar and Scopus among translational science trainees. We discovered higher overall citation counts in Google Scholar. Significant differences between Google Scholar and SCOPUS in bibliometrics, such as h-index, could impact the decisions made by program directors if the results are intermixed. Stakeholders should be consistent in their choice of academic search engine and avoid cross engine comparisons, as failure to do so might contribute to inequitable decision-making.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04462-2
  6. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2026 Apr 01. 34(7): e970-e984
    Gender Differences in Academic Productivity Among Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgeons.
    McKenzie A Mayer, Michael K Viggiano, Patrick M Pema, Samantha L Reiss, Jessica M Bernstein, Avrum L Joffe.
       INTRODUCTION: Existing literature lacks clarity on how geography may affect gender disparities among pediatric orthopaedic surgeons. This study compares the academic productivity of pediatric orthopaedic attendings based on their sex and region.
    METHODS: Faculty lists from the 45 Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America fellowship programs were accessed in February 2024. Data on sex, training history, fellowship director status, institution, publication counts, and H-indices were collected from program websites and Scopus. The attending publication rate was calculated by dividing the total number of publications completed as an attending by the number of years in practice. Results were displayed using (mean ± SD). Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson chi square. Mann-Whitney U and one-way analysis of variance were used for nonparametric and parametric data, respectively. Analyses were done using GraphPad Prism 10, with significance set at P < 0.05.
    RESULTS: Four hundred one pediatric orthopaedic surgeons (302 male, 99 female) from 45 fellowship programs were analyzed. Female surgeons had fewer publications, lower H-indices, and lower publication rates than male surgeons. In the Northeast, male attendings had higher publication counts, rates, and H-indices. Men also had higher H-indices than women in the Midwest and Southwest. Among male pediatric orthopaedic attendings, those in the Northeast exhibited the highest publication counts, rates, and H-indices. However, no regional differences were observed among female pediatric orthopaedic surgeons.
    CONCLUSION: Notable gender disparities persist among pediatric orthopaedic surgeons in the United States, reflecting systemic barriers that limit women's research opportunities. Male faculty outnumber female faculty across fellowship programs and have higher publication counts, rates, and H-indices. Regional differences were most notable in the Northeast, where male attendings had markedly higher publication counts, rates, and H-indices. H-index disparities were also present in the Midwest and Southwest. Targeted strategies are needed to improve research access and support for women trainees and faculty.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-25-00057
  7. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2026 Apr;42(4): 482-495
    Mapping the academic landscape of PubMed-indexed cardiothoracic surgical research in India: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis.
    Pradeep Narayan, Sufina Shales, Aditya Narsipur Doddamane.
       Aim: While several global bibliometric studies have examined cardiothoracic surgery research, India's contributions remain largely unquantified. This study aimed to perform a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of all PubMed-indexed publications related to cardiothoracic surgery from India.
    Methods: A retrospective review of PubMed was conducted for the period 1948-2024 using six predefined search strategies. Manuscripts were screened using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria and categorized by year, subspecialty, institution, and journal of publication.
    Results: A total of 8025 publications across 1014 journals were identified. The publication trajectory revealed three distinct phases: an early phase (1948-1986) with only 106 publications; an acceleration phase (1987-2019) with 5472 publications; and a recent phase (2020-2024) with an average of 489 publications per year, peaking at 566 in 2022. Adult cardiac surgery-including coronary artery bypass grafting, valve surgery, and aortic procedures-accounted for 33.1% of publications, followed by congenital (27.1%) and thoracic surgery (20.8%). The All India Institute(s) of Medical Sciences contributed the highest overall output. The Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (IJTC) emerged as the most frequently chosen journal in the last 5 years, accounting for 12.3% of all recent publications.
    Conclusion: This bibliometric analysis highlights India's expanding academic footprint in cardiothoracic surgery, reflecting evolving research priorities, increasing subspecialization, and a growing preference for domestic specialty journals.
    Graphical abstract:
    Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-025-02087-3.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Cardiothoracic surgery; PubMed; Scientometrics; Surgical research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-025-02087-3
  8. Front Psychol. 2025 ;16 1660783
    Identifying the 50 most productive researchers in top-tier, broad-scope educational psychology journals (2017-2022): a new perspective with a focus on publication trends and diversity.
    Veit Kubik, Lena Keller, Lea Jaspers, Annika Koch, Vincent Hoogerheide, Julian Roelle.
      The present study identified the most productive researchers in educational psychology by analyzing the number of published articles in top-tier and broad-scope educational psychology journals from 2017 to 2022. Building on prior productivity research, we extended the scope of the analysis in three distinct ways: (1) we expanded the sample to include the 50 most productive researchers; (2) we applied three different scoring methods to assess productivity; and (3) we used a broader and more objectively defined set of journals, based on the Web of Science "Psychology, Educational" category. In addition, we conducted an online survey to examine characteristics of highly productive researchers and examined their publications in the target journals with respect to research topics, open science practices, collaboration patterns, and internationalization. Results indicated that three senior researchers (i.e., Richard E. Mayer, Reinhard Pekrun, and Herbert W. Marsh) consistently ranked among the top 5. In addition, early-career researchers accounted for a substantial share of the top 50, ranging from 25% to 40%. However, the diversity of the most productive researchers was limited: the majority identified as White (86%), male (59%), non-first-generation students (60%), and first-generation faculty members (86%), and primarily held European (46%) or North American nationalities (39%). Publication trends showed a predominance of quantitative studies, with articles typically reporting 1.2 studies and an average of 4.2 authors. The most frequently used keywords were motivation, quantitative methods, and multimedia learning, reflecting a broad range of research interests within the field.
    Keywords:  diversity; educational psychology; open science; productivity; publication trends; ranking
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1660783
  9. J Orthop Traumatol. 2026 Mar 20.
    Authorship, titles and open access as drivers of citation performance in orthopaedics: a scientometric analysis.
    Filippo Migliorini, Raju Vaishya, Fabrizio Rivera, Jörg Eschweiler, Philipp Kobbe, Marcel Betsch, Francesco Oliva, Nicola Maffulli.
       BACKGROUND: Bibliometric analyses are increasingly used to explore how scientific knowledge is created, disseminated, and perceived. In orthopaedics, research output has expanded rapidly over the past decade, yet the factors determining whether an article achieves wide visibility and scholarly impact remain poorly understood. Beyond the inherent quality of a study, elements such as authorship patterns, title construction, and open access (OA) availability may play an essential role in shaping citation performance. However, evidence in this field is still limited and sometimes contradictory, highlighting the need for large-scale, field-specific analyses.
    METHODS: Orthopaedic publications from 2010 to 2020 were identified in Scopus using the keyword 'orthopaedic'. After duplicate removal, 97,806 unique articles were included with complete data on authorship, titles, citation counts, study design, and OA status. Citation rates were normalised per year since publication. Associations between bibliographic features and citation performance were assessed using multiple linear regression, while differences across title styles and study designs were evaluated with comparative statistical testing. Exploratory modelling was performed to identify combinations of authorship and title characteristics linked to the highest predicted citation rates.
    RESULTS: Larger author teams were associated with higher citation rates (β = 0.108 citations/year per additional author, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.103-0.114, p < 0.001). OA articles achieved a mean increase of 0.175 citations/year compared with non-OA (p = 0.001). Title length in characters correlated positively with citation rate (β = 0.023 per character, p < 0.001), whereas title length in words showed a negative association (β = -0.183 per word, p < 0.001). The presence of a colon (+0.314 citations/year, p < 0.001) or dash (+0.187, p = 0.001) increased citation performance, while question marks (-0.476, p < 0.001) and all-capital titles (mean 0.71 citations/year) reduced it. Regarding study design, network meta-analyses achieved the highest citation rate (mean 6.64 citations/year), followed by systematic reviews (5.66), meta-analyses (5.08) and narrative reviews (4.81). Randomised controlled trials (3.90) and clinical trials (3.86) performed at an intermediate level, whereas observational studies (2.40), case series (1.79), technical notes (1.33), case reports (0.77), editorials (0.51) and commentaries (0.25) showed consistently lower citation performance (p < 0.0001).
    CONCLUSIONS: In orthopaedic research, collaboration, OA availability and concise, well-structured titles with selected punctuation contribute to higher citation performance, while unconventional title formatting reduces visibility. Although useful for optimising dissemination, ethical authorship practices and rigorous scientific standards remain more critical than citation metrics.
    Keywords:  Academic visibility; Bibliometrics; Citation analysis; Collaboration; Publication ethics; Research impact; Scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-026-00911-z
  10. Cureus. 2026 Feb;18(2): e103708
    Tracking Scientific Publications in Non-traditional Academic Medical Centers.
    Elli Gourna Paleoudis.
      Tracking academic publications is inherently challenging for both academic and non-traditional academic centers. Publications are considered crucial for academic success; however, accurately identifying and reporting them is a resource-intensive process. There is a lack of a standardized, readily available solution that focuses on tracking publications linked to human subject research within a large healthcare network. This report presents a home-grown approach to tracking and reporting publications. The aim was to track publications and calculate the publication rate of studies approved by the institutional review board (IRB) between 2021 and 2023 at a large United States hospital network by surveying principal investigators (PI) via REDCap about resulting publications. This semi-automated approach revealed a 30.5% publication rate with publications including full-text articles, abstracts, posters, and conference presentations. Tracking publications within a complex healthcare network is challenging. While the described method facilitated data collection, it was time- and resource-intensive, and reliance on PI self-reporting could have limited the accuracy of the publication rate calculated. However, with further automation, home-grown approaches such as the one presented here could allow for a user-friendly application that other non-traditional academic medical centers can adopt. A widely acceptable and easily adaptable tool for publication tracking is needed, particularly for non-traditional academic centers. Future research should explore AI and machine learning applications to address this need.
    Keywords:  institutional publishing; medical publishing; non-traditional academic medical centers; publication tracker; publication tracking; scientific publications; tracking and reporting publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.103708
  11. PNAS Nexus. 2026 Mar;5(3): pgag057
    Interdisciplinary papers supported by disciplinary grants garner deep and broad scientific impact.
    Minsu Park, Suman Kalyan Maity, Stefan Wuchty, Dashun Wang.
      Interdisciplinary research has emerged as a hotbed for innovation and a key approach to addressing complex societal challenges. The dominance of grant-supported research in shaping scientific advances, coupled with growing interest in funding interdisciplinary work, raises fundamental questions about the effectiveness of interdisciplinary grants in fostering high-impact interdisciplinary research outcomes. Here, we analyze 350,000 grants from 164 agencies in 26 countries, along with 1.3 million resulting papers published between 1985 and 2009, to examine whether interdisciplinary grants successfully cultivate high-impact interdisciplinary research. Although interdisciplinary grants tend to produce interdisciplinary papers as intended, they yield fewer papers on average. Furthermore, while interdisciplinary papers are generally associated with high impact, those supported by interdisciplinary grants show substantially lower impact compared with those funded by disciplinary grants. In contrast, highly interdisciplinary papers anchored in deeply disciplinary grants garner disproportionately more citations, both within their core disciplines and from broader fields. This impact advantage is not merely a consequence of funding size, reception of ideas within disciplinary boundaries, or collaborative formats. Amid the substantial rise of support for interdisciplinary work across the sciences, these results highlight the underexplored role of disciplinary grants in driving interdisciplinary advances, suggesting that interdisciplinary research may benefit from deep disciplinary expertise and investments.
    Keywords:  interdisciplinary research; research grants; science of science; science policy; scientific impact
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgag057
  12. Account Res. 2026 Mar 15. 2645390
    Hallucinated citations produced by generative artificial intelligence may constitute research misconduct when citations function as data in scholarly papers.
    David B Resnik, Mohammad Hosseini.
      In this article, we discuss the growing problem of hallucinated citations produced by Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in scholarly research and writing. We argue that GenAI hallucinated citations might qualify as a provable instance of research misconduct under the U.S. federal regulations when a) the researcher uses a GenAI tool to produce hallucinated (i.e., nonexistent) citations for a research document; b) the citations function as data because they directly support research findings, as in, for example, review articles or bibliometric studies; and c) the researcher demonstrates indifference to the risk of fabrication of the data (i.e. citations) because they did not check the GenAI's output for veracity and accuracy. Other types of problematic citations such as bibliometrically incorrect citations, or contextually inaccurate citations, are indicative of poor scholarship and irresponsible behavior, but do not qualify as research misconduct. Recognizing that GenAI hallucinated citations could be regarded as research misconduct in certain cases will hopefully encourage researchers to take this problem more seriously than they do now. In partnership with scientific institutions, funders and professional societies, the scholarly community should work on establishing, promoting, and enforcing standards for responsible use of AI in research, including standards pertaining to citation practices.
    Keywords:  Hallucinated citations; fabrication; generative artificial intelligence; publication ethics; research misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2645390
  13. Am J Surg. 2026 Mar 09. pii: S0002-9610(26)00104-2. [Epub ahead of print]256 116921
    Medical technology consulting among academic vascular surgeons.
    Nikita Gidh, Brody King, Liam Cato, Alan Nagarajan, Kala T Pham, Tommaso Cambiaghi.
       OBJECTIVE: Medical device companies rely on surgeons' input to develop safe, effective products. For transparency, industry partners must publicly disclose payments via the Open Payments (OP) program, established through the Sunshine Act. We aim to examine the prevalence and factors influencing consulting payments made to academic vascular surgeons.
    METHODS: Faculty from integrated vascular surgery residencies were identified, and data on clinical experience, training, and research output were collected using OP, program websites, LinkedIn, and Scopus. Univariate linear, univariate logistic, and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed.
    RESULTS: From 75 programs (25% without consultants), 697 vascular surgeons were identified. Of these, 622 (89.2%) received $5,033,069 in total general payments and 117 (19%) received $2,168,496 (43%) in consulting payments in the 2022 fiscal year. Consultants received a general payment median of $12,966, significantly higher than non-consultants' $506 (p < 0.001). Median total consulting fees were $4400, and consultants had significantly more publications (p < 0.001), higher Hirsch indices (P < 0.001), and were less commonly females (p = 0.002) than non-consultants. There was no statistical association between consulting payments and clinical experience, research productivity, or biological sex.
    CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 in 5 academic vascular surgeons receive consulting payments. While consultants have significantly more publications and higher H indices than non-consultants, consulting payments received in dollars are not influenced by these factors. Female academic vascular surgeons are underrepresented in consulting, but the payments made to those who do consult do not significantly differ from their male counterparts.
    Keywords:  Academic consulting; Consulting payments; Faculty compensation; Industry relationships; Open payments program; Research productivity; Sex-based analysis; Transparency in healthcare; Vascular surgery consulting
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2026.116921
  14. Minerva Dent Oral Sci. 2026 Mar 19.
    Publication rate of endodontic posters presented at the congresses of the College of Italian Dental Professors.
    Giovanni Mergoni, Carlotta Napoli, Benedetta Ghezzi, Andrea Salvaterra Toffoli, Maddalena Manfredi.
       INTRODUCTION: Since 1993, the annual Congress of the College of the Italian Dental Professors (CDUO) has been the most important multidisciplinary event involving all Italian dental schools. The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the characteristics and fate of the posters' abstracts presented in the editions from 2015 to 2019 under the category "Endodontics."
    EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Abstracts presented in the category Endodontics from 2015 and 2019 were retrieved from the conference proceedings and reviewed. The following data were extracted: year, title, authors, affiliation, topic and study design. PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched to determine if each abstract was subsequently published as a full article in an indexed journal. The publication rate was calculated as well as the independent predictors of publication.
    EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: 118 endodontic posters from 19 Italian dental schools were assessed. The University of Turin submitted the most, followed by Catania and Rome La Sapienza. "Mechanical Instrumentation" was the most common topic, and 82% of the studies were in vitro/ex vivo. Of the 118 abstracts, 42 (35.6%) were published in full in indexed journals. Research collaboration and affiliation with the University of Catania significantly increased likelihood of publication. The published articles (N.=39) received a total of 1093 citations. Most appeared in the Journal of Endodontics and the International Endodontic Journal.
    CONCLUSIONS: Over one-third of the endodontic abstracts presented at CDUO congresses progressed to full publication in indexed journals, generating a notable number of citations. These results highlight the solid quality of Italian endodontic research and its increasing visibility within the international scientific community.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6329.26.05211-3
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒04‒16 at 22:48.