Trends in academic productivity in the COVID-19 era: analysis of neurosurgical, stroke neurology, and neurointerventional literature

Network Analysis of Women in Otolaryngology and Demographic Trends

OBJECTIVE

This study analyzes gender disparities between men and women otolaryngology faculty in the top 20 otolaryngology departments ranked by research output and discusses the implications of these disparities.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of all articles published by faculty from January 2020 to December 2021 at the top 20 otolaryngology departments as ranked by Doximity's 2022 research output report. Integrated data from Web of Science, faculty directories, and NIH RePORT were used to collect data on faculty. Social network analysis was performed using ORA-LITE. Student's and Welch's t-tests and Pearson chi-squared tests were used to evaluate gender differences in academic metrics.

RESULTS

The findings revealed significant gender disparities, with men holding higher academic positions (men = 3.16, women = 2.69, p < 0.0001), higher H-indices (22.4, 13.8, p < 0.0001), more NIH grants (0.15, 0.07, p = 0.0032), and greater total degree centrality (3.98E-4, 2.4E-4, p < 0.0001) and betweenness centrality (4.47E-3, 3.00E-3, p = 0.0021). Men also had more publications (9.8, 6.8, p < 0.0001) with more distinct co-authors, both within (4, 3.1, p = 0.0074) and across (38.1, 25.8, p < 0.0001) institutions. Disparities persisted after accounting for career length. Notably, total degree centrality differences between men and women were statistically significant from 1991 to 2017 (p < 0.0001), but not from 2018 to 2022 (p = 0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights gender inequities in otolaryngology, encouraging mentors to foster new collaborations with female peers. Importantly, it identifies a trend toward narrowing the gender gap within the specialty, particularly over the past 5 years, emphasizing the need to sustain these positive changes for enhanced gender equity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 135:1039-1045, 2025.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Academic Productivity in Oncology: A Journal-, Conference- and Author-Level Analysis

This study assessed the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on academic productivity in oncology, measured by conference abstracts, journal publications and individual authorship trends, using a reference time frame of 2018 to 2022. To assess overall academic productivity, data was obtained on the number of abstracts and articles submitted and published from a selection of oncology conferences and journals. To assess individual authorship patterns, 200 articles were randomly selected from 2018, and for the first or last authors, publications were tracked over subsequent years. Factors assessed included gender, continent, specialty, MD vs. non-MD and career status (early vs. late). The number of submitted and published conference abstracts trended downward over time between 2018 and 2022 (p=0.11 and p=0.16 respectively). Journal submissions increased to a peak in 2020 and then declined thereafter, but this did not translate into changes in the number of papers published. For the author-level analysis, factors significantly predictive of increasing publication rates in multivariable analysis were late career status (vs. early), clinician status (vs. non-clinician), surgery or public health/epidemiology specialty, and author located in Asia. Further research is needed to help ameliorate the impact of these disparities.

The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Academic Research Gender Disparities in Radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Gender disparities have long existed in radiology. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted research activities worldwide and have impacted gender disparities across medical specialties. This study investigates the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on gender disparities in radiology academic authorship.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted using data from 110 843 global and 23 977 US radiology articles. The gender of authors was determined using an automated gender inference tool. Descriptive statistics were applied to explore authorship changes overall globally, in the US as well as across countries and states.

RESULTS

Female first-authorship increased globally from 16.9% to 17.6% (p < 0.001), and in the US, from 19.0% to 19.6% (p = 0.19) in the peri-COVID period. The combined female percentage increased from 19.7% to 20.0% globally (p = 0.021), and from 20.2% to 21.1% in the US (p = 0.006). Country-level analysis revealed significant increases in female authorship in Colombia, Denmark, Egypt, France, India, and Japan, while New Zealand demonstrated a decrease in female authorship. In the US, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Ohio experienced increases in female authorship, whereas South Carolina demonstrated a decrease in female authorship.

CONCLUSION

In contrast with other medical fields, the study demonstrates that radiology experienced a slight increase in female authorship in radiology research globally and in the US during the COVID period. While the pandemic may have influenced these findings, further research is needed to establish regional causal relationships and identify best practices for promoting gender equity in radiology research.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Educational and Academic Activities of Healthcare Professionals in Bahrain

INTRODUCTION

Since its emergence, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a radical effect on different aspects of health worldwide. The burden created by the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare systems has also involved educational and academic activities among healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the participation of doctors and nurses in educational and academic activities in Bahrain.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted through an online questionnaire that was distributed among 204 healthcare providers (HCPs) in the Kingdom of Bahrain.

RESULTS

Out of 204 HCPs, 110 (53.9%) were doctors and 94 (46.1%) were nurses. A total of 154 responses were received (100 (64%) doctors and 54 (35.1%) nurses) with an overall response rate of 75.5%. Seventy-four (74%) doctors and 32 (59.2%) nurses stated that their overall academic activities had decreased since the start of the pandemic, yet this was not statistically significant (P=0.059). Unlike nurses, doctors attended more webinars 54 (54%) and online courses 47 (47%), compared to the time before the pandemic (P=0.022, P=0.014, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on educational and academic activities among healthcare workers. However, it created an opportunity to expand the use of electronic and online methods in those activities.

Global Research Trends of Neurosurgery: A Comprehensive Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis of Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the bibliometric characteristics of scientific articles on systematic reviews of neurosurgery worldwide.

METHODS

Bibliographic searches were performed in journals indexed by the Web of Science database until 2022, with no language restrictions. A total of 771 articles were ultimately included on the basis of predefined inclusion criteria, which were manually reviewed. The bibliometric analysis involved the use of quantitative bibliometric indicators and network analysis, which were performed using the bibliometrix package in R and VOSviewer, respectively.

RESULTS

The first publication was in 2002, and the number of publications increased over time, with the largest number of publications in 2021 (156 articles). The average number of citations per document was 17.36, and the annual growth rate was 6.82%. Nathan A. Shlobin was the author with the most published articles (19 articles). The most cited study was published by Jobst BC (2015). WORLD NEUROSURGERY was the journal with the most publications (51 articles). The country of corresponding authors with the most publications and the greatest number of total citations was the United States. The affiliations with the most articles were University of Toronto (67 articles) and Harvard Medical School (54 articles).

CONCLUSIONS

The increasing trend during the past 20 years, and especially in the past 2 years, highlights the advancements in various subspecialities in the field. Our analysis revealed that North American and Western European countries are at the forefront of the field. There is a poor output of publications, authors, and affiliations in Latin-American and African countries.

Network analysis of neurosurgical literature: an increased focus on training during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic led to stringent guidelines to restrict the conduct of non-emergent surgical procedures. Consequently, neurosurgery departments experienced a decline in case volumes and greater educational time being spent on virtual research projects. In our report, we reveal how neurosurgical research has changed during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic phase. The WebOfScience database was searched for neurosurgical articles published between 2012-2019 (pre-pandemic) and 2020-2022 (pandemic). From this data, the keywords, terms, and countries were analyzed using networks formed by the VOS Viewer software. In addition, the analysis was repeated for neurosurgical articles specific to COVID-19. Network analyses of terms and keywords revealed an increased popularity of virtual research projects, including case reports, meta-analyses, reviews, surveys, and database studies. Additionally, there was increased interest in research pertaining to neurosurgical education during the post-pandemic era, including topics regarding virtual training modalities, mental health, and telemedicine. Our bibliometrics analysis suggests that the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on hospital systems affected neurosurgical training programs. Future investigations should explore the effects of the trainee experience during the COVID-19 pandemic on the outlook for neurosurgical education.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the research activities of UK ophthalmologists

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted negatively on many areas of biomedical research and there is concern that academic recovery will take several years. This survey aimed to define the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on UK ophthalmologists' research activities and understand the implications for recovery.

METHODS

An online survey comprising multiple choice and free-text questions was designed, piloted and then distributed to Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCOphth) members in January 2021. Respondent characteristics, research expectations and experiences through the pandemic were captured. Descriptive and comparative statistics were applied to quantitative data alongside content analysis of qualitative data.

RESULTS

In total, 148 respondents (3.7% of RCOphth membership) comprised 46 trainees (31.1%), 97 consultants (65.5%) and 5 SAS doctors (3.4%); 54 had clinical-academic roles (36.5%) and 65/94 (69.1%) ophthalmologists with fully clinical posts identified as research-active. Of 114 research-active respondents, 104 (91.2%) reported an impact on their research from COVID-19; negative impacts included loss of research time (n = 69), research delays (n = 96) and funding shortfalls (n = 63). Content analysis identified five common themes; type of research activity, clinical demands, institutional challenges, COVID-19 alignment and work-life balance.

CONCLUSIONS

UK ophthalmology research has been adversely impacted by the pandemic. A substantial proportion of UK ophthalmologists are research active, but 20.4% of those surveyed felt that the pandemic had made research less attractive. Strategic steps must be taken to nurture UK ophthalmologists' engagement with research, especially for those who currently do no research, if the profession is to align itself with the Government vision of 'Research for All'.

The Effect of COVID-19 in a University Hospital Neurosurgery Clinic Comparison to Prepandemic Period: A Retrospective Study with 6 months of Data

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected all countries' health systems and people's lifestyles. In this study, we aimed to investigate its effects in a university hospital neurosurgery clinic.

METHODS

The 2019 year's 6 months' data as a prepandemic period compared to the 2020 year's same period as a pandemic date. Demographic data were collected. Operations were divided into seven groups: tumor, spinal, vascular, cerebrospinal fluid disorders, hematoma, local, and minor surgery, respectively. We classified the hematoma cluster into subgroups to evaluate the etiology: epidural, acute subdural, subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracerebral hemorrhage, depressed skull fractures, and others. Patients' COVID-19 test results were collected.

RESULTS

Total operations decreased from 972 to 795 (Δ18.2%) during the pandemic. All groups, except minor surgery cases, decreased compared to the prepandemic period. Also, vascular procedures for females increased during the pandemic period. While focusing on the hematoma subgroups, there was decreasing in epidural and subdural hematomas, depressed skull fractures, and total case numbers; an increase in subarachnoid hemorrhage and intracerebral hemorrhage. Overall mortality significantly increased to 9.6% from 6.8% during the pandemic (P = 0.033). Eight (1.0%) of 795 patients were COVID-19-positive; three of them died. Neurosurgery residents and academicians were unsatisfied with decreased number of operations, training, and research productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

The pandemic and restrictions affected negatively the health system and people's access to healthcare. Our retrospective observational study aimed to evaluate these effects and take lessons for the next similar situations. People's access to health care should be considered when lockdown restrictions.

Trends in Academic Productivity Among Radiologists During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE

There is a scarcity of literature examining changes in radiologist research productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. The current study aimed to investigate changes in academic productivity as measured by publication volume before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective cohort study included the publication data of 216 researchers consisting of associate professors, assistant professors, and professors of radiology. Wilcoxon's signed-rank test was used to identify changes in publication volume between the 1-year-long defined prepandemic period (publications between May 1, 2019, and April 30, 2020) and COVID-19 pandemic period (May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021).

RESULTS

There was a significantly increased mean annual volume of publications in the pandemic period (5.98, SD = 7.28) compared with the prepandemic period (4.98, SD = 5.53) (z = -2.819, P = .005). Subset analysis demonstrated a similar (17.4%) increase in publication volume for male researchers when comparing the mean annual prepandemic publications (5.10, SD = 5.79) compared with the pandemic period (5.99, SD = 7.60) (z = -2.369, P = .018). No statistically significant changes were found in similar analyses with the female subset.

DISCUSSION

Significant increases in radiologist publication volume were found during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the year before. Changes may reflect an overall increase in academic productivity in response to clinical and imaging volume ramp down.

Main barriers and possible enablers of academicians while publishing

This study aims to determine the cognitive, social, physical, and affective barriers that prevent academics from publishing and the enablers suggested to overcome these barriers. The study, using the phenomenological research method, involved semi-structured interviews conducted with 41 academicians differing in gender, branch, age, and experience. The deductive analysis of the obtained data showed that the academicians had cognitive difficulties especially in writing the IMRAD sections and writing in English. Their social barriers were found to include the difficulty of journal evaluation processes, the problems experienced in carrying out collaborative studies, and educational, administrative, and family responsibilities. The physical barriers included problems about time management, data collection process, and infrastructure. Lastly, the main affective barriers were not being in the right mood for writing, thinking that studies do not contribute to real life, fear of rejection, lack of self-confidence, and perfectionism. The academicians suggested various enablers, such as finding a good research topic, improving one's English language skills, cooperating, and insisting on acceptance.

Academic productivity in pediatric neurosurgery in relation to elective surgery slowdown during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

COVID-19 has not only impacted healthcare systems directly via hospitalizations and resource utilization, but also indirectly via adaptations in healthcare practice, such as the evolution of the academic environment and the rise of telemedicine and virtual education. This void in clinical responsibilities has been filled with academic productivity in various fields. In this study the authors investigate the influence of COVID-19 on the academic focus within pediatric neurosurgery.

METHODS

All data were obtained from the Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics (JNS Peds). The number of submissions for each month from January 2017 to December 2021 was collected. Data including number of publications, publication level of evidence (LOE), and COVID-19-related articles were collected and verified. Each publication was categorized by manuscript and LOE according to adaptations from the Canadian Task Force on Periodic Health Examination. Publication groups were categorized as pre-COVID-19 (January 2017-February 2020), peri-COVID-19 (March 2020-July 2020), and post-COVID-19 (August 2020-December 2021). Statistical analysis was performed to compare pre-COVID-19, peri-COVID-19, and post-COVID-19 academic volume and quality.

RESULTS

During the study time period, a total of 3116 submissions and 997 publications were identified for JNS Peds. Only 2 articles specifically related to COVID-19 and its impact on pediatric neurosurgery were identified, both published in 2021. When analyzing submission volume, a statistically significant increase was seen during the shutdown relative to pre-COVID-19 and post-shutdown time periods, and a significant decrease was seen post-shutdown relative to pre-COVID-19. LOE changed significantly as well. When comparing pre-COVID-19 versus post-COVID-19 articles, a statistically significant increase was identified only in level 4 publications. When analyzing pre-COVID-19 versus post-COVID-19 (2020) and post-COVID-19 (2021), a statistically significant decrease in level 3 and increases in levels 4 and 5 were identified during post-COVID-19 (2020), with a rebound increase in level 3 and a decrease in level 5 during post-COVID-19 (2021).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant increase in manuscript submission during the initial pandemic period. However, there was no change during subsequent spikes in COVID-19-related hospitalizations. Coincident with the initial surge in academic productivity, despite steady publication volume, was an inverse decline in quality as assessed by LOE.

How has the COVID-19 pandemic impacted clinical care and research in Neuro-Oncology?

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the continued delivery of healthcare globally. Due to disease risk, clinicians were forced to re-evaluate the safety and priorities of pre-pandemic care. Neuro-oncology presents unique challenges, as patients can deteriorate rapidly without intervention. These challenges were also observed in countries with reduced COVID-19 burden with centres required to rapidly develop strategies to maintain efficient and equitable care. This review aims to summarise the impact of the pandemic on clinical care and research within the practice of Neuro-oncology. A narrative review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE and EMBASS and results screened using PRISMA guidelines with relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria. Search strategies included variations of ‘Neuro-oncology’ combined with COVID-19 and other clinical-related terms. Most adult and paediatric neurosurgical centres experienced reductions in new referrals and operations for brain malignancies, and those who did present for treatment frequently had operations cancelled or delayed. Many radiation therapy and medical oncology centres altered treatment plans to mitigate COVID-19 risk for patients and staff. New protocols were developed that aimed to reduce in-person visits and reduce the risk of developing severe complications from COVID-19. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented many challenges to the provision of safe and accessible healthcare. Despite these challenges, some benefits to healthcare provision such as the use of telemedicine are likely to remain in future practice. Neuro-oncology staff must remain vigilant to ensure patient and staff safety.

Neurosurgery Research Productivity in Latin American and Caribbean Countries: A Bibliometric and Visualized Study

OBJECTIVES

Determine the bibliometric characteristics of scientific articles that address the subject of neurosurgery in Latin America and the Caribbean.

METHODS

A bibliographic search of original articles published in the Web of Science database up to 2021 was performed, without language restrictions. The terms included in the search strategy were Neurosurgery, neurosurgical procedures, and neurological surgical procedure. Articles according to the inclusion criteria in the Rayyan application were included. Subsequently, a quantitative bibliometric analysis was carried out with the bibliometrix package in R and VOSviewer.

RESULTS

We identified 882 articles published in 271 journals. The first publication was in 2006, the highest number of publications was in 2021, the annual percentage growth rate was 25.9, and the average number of citations per document was 11.2. The author with the highest number of publications was Teixeira MJ (41 articles), and the University of Sao Paulo had the highest number of articles on this topic. WORLD NEUROSURGERY was the journal with the most publications (120 articles), and the study by Carney et al (2017) was the most cited (1175 citations). The country of corresponding authors with the most publications and the greatest number of total citations was Brazil. Surgery, and Management were the most used keywords plus; however, in the most recent articles Simulation and Guidelines were used.

CONCLUSIONS

In the past decade, there has been an increase in articles on neurosurgery in Latin America and the Caribbean. Scientific production in neurosurgery must continue to increase in order to promote evidence-based medicine.

Three Stressed Systems: Health Sciences Faculty Members Navigating Academia, Healthcare, and Family Life during the Pandemic

The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the academic productivity of health sciences faculty members in one graduate school in the United States. Thirty-two faculty members completed an electronic survey comparing academic productivity in the year prior to the pandemic to a year during the pandemic. In total, 90.7% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that time dedicated to teaching increased, and 81.2% agreed or strongly agreed that they prioritized teaching over research during the pandemic. Participants presented an average of 2.72 peer-reviewed papers at an academic conference the year before and 1.47 during the pandemic, with females more adversely affected than males. Journal submissions with survey participants as the first or last authors decreased during the pandemic. Twelve faculty members including genetic counseling, nursing, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech and language pathology participated in one-to-one interviews. Three themes emerged from qualitative data analysis: stressed systems, balancing act, and meaningful connection. Faculty members were faced with an external locus of control during the pandemic and noted a lack of autonomy and pressure to help students graduate on time and maintain the quality of teaching while dealing with uncertainty in both their professional and personal lives. The pandemic disproportionately impacted women and junior faculty members as connectedness and mentorship declined. Collaboration and research mentorship must be prioritized moving forward to continue to advance healthcare and health sciences education.

Work-Life Balance and Productivity Among Academic Faculty During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Latent Class Analysis

Background: For faculty in academic health sciences, the balance between research, education, and patient care has been impeded by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study aimed to identify personal and professional characteristics of faculty to understand the impact of the pandemic on faculty and consequent policy implications. Methods: A 93-question survey was sent to faculty at a large urban public university and medical center. Demographic, family, and academic characteristics, work distribution and productivity before and during the pandemic, stress, and self-care data information were collected. Latent class analysis (LCA) was performed to identify classes of faculty sharing similar characteristics. Comparisons between latent classes were performed using analysis of variance and chi-square analyses. Results: Of 497 respondents, 60% were women. Four latent classes of faculty emerged based on six significant indicator variables. Class 1 individuals were more likely women, assistant professors, nontenured with high work and home stress; Class 2 faculty were more likely associate professors, women, tenured, who reported high home and work stress; Class 3 faculty were more likely men, professors, tenured with moderate work, but low home stress; and Class 4 faculty were more likely adjunct professors, nontenured, and had low home and work stress. Class 2 reported significantly increased administrative and clinical duties, decreased scholarly productivity, and deferred self-care. Conclusions: The pandemic has not affected faculty equally. Early and mid-career individuals were impacted negatively from increased workloads, stress, and decreased self-care. Academic leaders need to acknowledge these differences and be inclusive of faculty with different experiences when adjusting workplace or promotion policies.

Global survey on disruption and mitigation of neurological services during COVID-19: the perspective of global international neurological patients and scientific associations

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic outbreak has dramatically disrupted healthcare systems. Two rapid WHO pulse surveys studied disruptions in mental health services, but did not particularly focus on neurology. Here, a global survey was conducted and addresses the impact of the pandemic on neurology services.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was carried out in which 34 international neurological associations were asked to distribute the survey to national associations. The responses represented the national situation, in November-December 2020, with regard to the main disrupted neurological services, reasons and the mitigation strategies implemented as well as the disruption on training of residents and on neurological research. A comparison with the situation in February-April 2020, first pandemic wave, was also requested.

FINDINGS

54 completed surveys came from 43 countries covering all the 6 WHO regions. Overall, neurological services disruption was reported as mild by 26%, moderate by 30%, complete by 13% of associations. The most affected services were cross-sectoral neurological services (57%) and neurorehabilitation (56%). The second wave of the pandemic, however, was associated with the improvement of service provision for diagnostics services (44%) and for neurorehabilitation (41%). Governmental directives were the major cause of services' disruption (56%). Mitigation strategies were mostly established through telemedicine (48%). Almost half of respondents reported a significant impact on neurological research (48%) and educational activities (60%). Most associations (67%) were not involved in decision making for neurological patients' issues by their national government.

INTERPRETATION

The COVID-19 pandemic affects neurological services and raises the universal need for the development of neurological health care at the policy, systems and services levels. A global national plan on mitigation strategies for disruption of neurological services during pandemic situations should be established and neurological scientific and patients associations should get involved in decision making.

An Estimation of the Retraction Gap Across Neurosurgery-A Crevice or a Chasm?

BACKGROUND

The incidence of retractions has been increasing steadily, in direct proportion to the volume of scientific literature. Retraction of published articles depends on the visibility of journals and on postpublication scrutiny of published articles by peers. The possibility thus exists that not all compromised ("retractable") articles are detected and retracted from the less-visible journals. The proportion of "retractable" articles and its converse, the proportion of published articles in each journal that are likely to be "true" (PTP), have not been estimated hitherto.

METHODS

Three journal sets were created: pure neurosurgery journals (NS-P), the neurosurgery component of multidisciplinary journals (NS-MD), and high-impact clinical journals (HICJs). We described a new metric (the retraction gap [RGap]), defined as the proportion of retractable articles in journals that have not been retracted. We computed the expected number of retractable articles, RGap, and PTP for each journal, and compared these metrics across groups.

RESULTS

Fifty-three NS-P journals, 10 NS-MD journals, and 63 HICJs were included in the analysis. The estimated number of retractable articles was 31 times the actual number of retractions in NS-P journals, 6 times higher in the NS-MD journals, and 26 times higher for the HICJs. The RGap was 96.7% for the NS-P group, 83.5% for the NS-MD group, and 96.2% for the HICJs. The PTP was 99.3% in the NS-P group, 99.2% in the NS-MD group, and 98.6% in the HICJs.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurosurgery as a discipline had a higher RGap but also a higher PTP than the other 2 groups.

[Development of the publication activity at the German university hospitals for Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery during the SARS-CoV-2-pandemic in 2020]

INTRODUCTION

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has led to profound limitations in patient care and student teaching at the University Hospitals of Otorhinolaryngology (ORL). In contrast, the impact on research has been variable. To classify the pandemic-related effect on research, the development of the number of scientific publications of the German ORL university hospitals before and during the pandemic was analyzed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The publication performance between 2015 and 2020 of the 39 current chairmen was surveyed using a literature search (Pubmed). All entries relating to the chairmen of the university hospital as first, last or co-author were included. The absolute and relative development of each author's publication performance was determined and evaluated using nonparametric statistical methods.

RESULTS

A total of 2420 publications could be documented. From 2015 to 2019, an average of 368 publications were published per year. In 2020, this number increased by 57.9 % to 581 publications. While the number of monthly publications remained constant between 2015 and 2019, a significant increase was seen from May 2020 up to a maximum of 74 publications in September 2020. In 2020, 34 articles (5.9 %) had a thematic relation to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, with 7 of these papers (20.6 %) resulting from cross-site publications.

CONCLUSION

In 2020, the number of scientific publications was raised to more than 1.5 times the usual annual publications. This increase was clearly related in time to the reduction of elective patient care during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic starting in mid-March 2020. Probably, free time capacities enabled this increased publication output. Our results confirm the great scientific potential of the ORL university hospitals, which has been successfully implemented despite the pandemic.