Surgeon level of expertise reported in Journal of Hand Surgery (American Volume) and (European Volume) publications

How international are the editorial boards in the field of hand research? A cross-sectional study of leading subspecialty hand journals

BACKGROUND

Although low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) have great disease burden, but the lack of studies from LMIC have been shown in several fields. Multiple researchers from LMIC perceive editorial bias against their studies. Editorial board members (EBMs) from LMIC are under-represented across many medical journals. It is still unclear whether this phenomenon exists in the field of hand research. The purpose of this study was to investigate the composition of EBMs in leading subspecialty hand journals, and to reveal the international representation of EBMs in the field of hand research.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included seven leading subspecialty hand journals. The EBMs were obtained from the journals' websites. The country affiliations of EBMs were categorized based on their locations and economy status. The composition of EBMs was investigated.

RESULTS

There were 211 EBMs in the seven journals. A total of 185 EBMs (87.7%) were affiliated with high-income countries (HIC), 18 (8.5%) with upper middle-income countries, and 8 (3.8%) with lower middle-income countries. None EBMs were affiliated with low income countries. The EBMs were affiliated with 30 countries. The biggest number of EBMs were affiliated with the USA 74 (35.07%), followed by the United Kingdom (45, 21.33%), and France (13, 6.16%). Most of EBMs were based in Europe and Central Asia (86, 40.8%) and North America (81, 38.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The EBMs of leading subspecialty hand journals are dominated by HIC with a very low representation of LMIC. There is a need to make the editorial boards more international in the field of hand research.

Does Surgeon Level of Expertise Correlate with Patient Outcomes?

Background  It is difficult to evaluate the results of surgical techniques as there is inherent variability between surgeons in regard to experience, skill level, and knowledge. Tang suggested a classification system in 2009 in an attempt to standardize surgeon level of expertise, with categories ranging from nonspecialist (Level I) to expert (Level V). This epidemiological analysis of all articles citing Tang's original paper examines if a surgeon's self-reported level of expertise correlates with outcomes and evaluates whether the current definition of Tang level is sufficient to account for expertise bias. Methods  In May 2021, all articles citing Tang level of expertise were identified ( N  = 222). Articles were included if they described a novel technique and provided author(s)' levels ( n  = 205). Statistical analysis was conducted, and p -values less than 0.05 were considered significant. Results  The most common specialties reporting Tang level of expertise were orthopaedic surgery (82.9%) and plastic surgery (15.5%). The most common subspecialty was hand surgery. 2020 was the year with the most studies reporting level of expertise (31.7%), followed by 2021 (20.0%) and 2019 (17.1%). The majority of studies (80.5%) reported positive results with their technique, and of these, 63.3% were statistically significant. Level of expertise was not significantly associated with a doctoral degree, type of residency completed, fellowship completion, hand fellowship, author sex, study type, or result significance. Discussion  The current Tang classification is both underreported and incomplete in its present state. To account for expertise bias, we recommend all authors report Tang level when describing surgical techniques. Studies with multiple authors should explicitly state the level of each author, as well as a weighted average accounting for the total contribution of each individual.

Robot-assisted groin hernia repair is primarily performed by specialized surgeons: a scoping review

Surgical residents routinely participate in open and laparoscopic groin hernia repairs. The increasing popularity of robot-assisted groin hernia repair could lead to an educational loss for residents. We aimed to explore the involvement of surgical specialists and surgical residents, i.e., non-specialists, in robot-assisted groin hernia repair. The scoping review was reported according to PRISMA-ScR guideline. A protocol was uploaded at Open Science Framework, and a systematic search was conducted in four databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science. Included studies had to report on robot-assisted groin hernia repairs. Data charting was conducted in duplicate. Of the 67 included studies, 85% of the studies described that the robot-assisted groin hernia repair was performed by a surgical specialist. The rest of the studies had no description of the primary operating surgeon. Only 13% of the included studies reported that a resident attended the robot-assisted groin hernia repair. Thus, robot-assisted groin hernia repair was mainly performed by surgical specialists, and robot-assisted groin hernia repair therefore seems to be underutilized to educate surgical residents.

Expertise of Surgeons Publishing Novel Techniques in the Journal of Wrist Surgery

Introduction  Recent efforts to standardize reporting of surgeon experience in novel technique publications have recommended reporting of Tang level of expertise (LOE). Question/Purpose  The aim of this study was to document trends in LOE reporting for novel technique articles published in the Journal of Wrist Surgery and evaluate whether author experience affects novel research outcomes. Methods  A total of 261 articles published from 2018 to 2020 were reviewed. Articles describing novel surgical techniques were included and examined for Tang LOE. Author variables were collected online. Results  Eight percent (21/261) of articles discussed novel surgical techniques and one reported LOE. Nearly half (47.6%) of articles did not conduct statistical analysis. Four (19.0%) reported insignificant statistical results and 7 (33.3%) reported significant findings. All significant statistical findings were positive. Number of prior related publications by the senior author did not affect new technique result significance ( p  = 0.34). Discussion  From 2018 to 2020, only one article documented LOE. Authors' variables, including number of prior related publications, were not correlated with significant results in their new publications. This may suggest that an author's established experience in a novel technique, quantified by prior publications on the topic, does not make one more likely to achieve significantly better or worse outcomes in their reviewed Journal of Wrist Surgery study. Conclusions  Tang LOE is an important way for readers to classify expertise and should be reported, and potentially modified to better define contributing variables.

Surgeon Level of Expertise in Adult Reconstruction: A Brief Communication Regarding the Need for Reporting the Level of Expertise

The purpose of the current brief communication is to establish a discussion regarding level of expertise (LOE) documentation in future arthroplasty clinical studies and to document the trend in adoption of LOE among arthroplasty publications to date. A review of Arthroplasty Today, Journal of Arthroplasty (JOA), Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS), and International Orthopedics (IO) databases for original studies published between April 2016 and July 2020 was performed. A total of 105 articles were identified and evaluated in Arthroplasty Today, 1011 in JOA, 127 in JBJS, and 383 in IO. Of 1011 articles identified in JOA, only one manuscript (1/1011; 0.1%), by Uluyardimci et.al, included the LOE of the surgeon(s) involved in the study. No articles in Arthroplasty Today (0/125; 0%), JBJS (0/127; 0%), or IO (0/383; 0%) reported the LOE according to Tang's recommendations during the same period. Documenting LOE may provide readers with additional information for incorporation of novel techniques into their practices as well as identify procedures that require a baseline LOE for effective performance. Further evaluation of LOE criteria may improve the reliability of the numeric scale, while widespread adoption of this scale will allow future outcome analysis by LOE.