RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to provide the poster and podium publication rates from the 2016 to 2019 American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) annual meetings and assess the quality of presentations ultimately published during this time. METHODS: Posters and podiums from 2016 to 2019 were located through the AAHKS e-poster and meeting archives. Titles were queried on Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed. Presentation title, topic type, number of authors, degrees held by first author, and award status were collected. For each identified full-text publication, journal name, study type, dates of online and print publication, and journal impact factor (JIF) were also obtained. RESULTS: A total of 1,274 abstracts were presented at the 2016 to 2019 AAHKS annual meetings with an overall publication rate of 67.8% (864 of 1,274). Podiums (4.0 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.0 to 4.0) were more likely to be published earlier than posters (7.0 months, 95% CI: 6.0 to 7.0) (P < .001). The median JIF of published abstracts was 3.3 (95% CI: 3.3 to 3.7) with no significant difference in mean JIF of published posters or podiums (3.3 ± 1.0 versus 3.3 ± 1.0, P = .554). The likelihood of publication was significantly higher for podiums (odds ratio [OR]: 3.41, 95% CI: 2.29 to 5.07, P < .001), award-winning presentations (OR: 4.78, 95% CI: 1.69 to 13.55, P = .003), and with more authors (OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.16, P = .014). DISCUSSION: This analysis demonstrates abstracts presented at the AAHKS annual meetings from 2016 to 2019 had an overall publication rate of 67.8%, with podiums (86.4%) 3 times as likely to be published as posters (63.6%). If selected to present at the AAHKS annual meeting, individuals can be confident that their work has a high chance of eventual publication.
RESUMEN
In the event of prior authorization denial, physicians may request peer-to-peer review, which may delay treatment and increase administrative burden. The purpose of this study was to quantify the approval rate of peer-to-peer review and evaluate its efficiency in the context of advanced imaging use in an orthopedic practice. Patients at a single outpatient orthopedic clinic initially receiving an insurance denial for computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging requiring peer-to-peer review from March to December 2022 were prospectively enrolled. Characteristics of the request, peer-to-peer review, and the reviewer and dates in the process were collected. If the study was approved after peer-to-peer review, the date of the imaging study and brief results were recorded. A total of 62 denials were included. One denial was approved prior to peer-to-peer review. Fifty-eight (of 61, 95.1%) reviews were approved, of which 51 (of 58, 87.9%) studies were completed by patients. Reviewers were always physicians (61 of 61, 100%), but of those whose specialty was known, none were orthopedic surgeons. Forty-four of 61 (72.1%) reviewers reported reviewing clinical notes in advance. The median number of days from visit to peer-to-peer review was 9.0 (interquartile range, 7.0-13.25). The median number of days from visit to imaging center appointment was 13.5 (interquartile range, 9.0-20.75) for approved studies. Of the 51 approved studies completed by patients, the results of 38 (74.5%) confirmed the suspected diagnosis. In an orthopedic specialty practice, almost all peer-to-peer reviews were approved, with the majority of the completed studies confirming the suspected diagnosis. Thus, patient care was delayed. Reform is crucial to improve the efficiency of the review process, especially in light of additional administrative and financial burden. [Orthopedics. 202x;4x(x):xx-xx.].
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) society has advanced the practice of shoulder and elbow care through the exhibition of research at academic meetings. The ASES annual meeting is a closed (member-only) conference annually held in October, while the specialty day is an open (non-members included) event that takes place during the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) meeting week in March. This study aims to compare the rate of publication for abstracts presented at the open and closed ASES meetings from 2013 to 2019. METHODS: The ASES website was searched to obtain the annual meeting and specialty day program agendas from 2013 to 2019. A standardized search protocol was employed to identify conference abstracts that went on to be published. Publications associated with an ASES abstract were analyzed through several variables including the time to publication, journal impact factor (JIF), and level of evidence. RESULTS: There was no difference between the rates of publication of the open (76.5%, 121/158) and closed (75.3%, 223/296) meetings (P = .904). The median time to publication significantly differed between the open (7 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.0-10.0) and closed (11 months, 95% CI: 9.0-13.0) meetings (P = .02). There was no difference between the median JIF between the open (2.69, 95% CI: 2.41-2.81) and closed (2.73, 95% CI: 2.41-2.81) meetings. The distribution of the level of evidence in published articles comparing the open and closed meetings did not differ significantly (P = .446). DISCUSSION: The overall quality of academic research presented at orthopedic subspecialty conferences can be objectively evaluated through abstract publication rates. Our analysis demonstrates that there is not a single significant difference among the publication rates, median JIF, and level of evidence distribution between the ASES open and closed meetings from 2013 to 2019. Impactful research is showcased at both the open and closed meetings. Societies that limit submissions from members only at annual meetings can consider soliciting research from non-members. While the quality of research would not decline if non-ASES members were invited to participate, the presence of a closed annual meeting may be a valuable tool for societies to expand their reach through member-exclusive benefits.