INTRODUCTION
Scientific articles are commonly used for the measurement of
individual/institutional performances and to obtain funding1. In the context of plastic surgery, scientific production
is one of the main factors that influence the career of newly trained plastic
surgeons2 and the selection of
candidates into a residency program3.
Moreover, the teaching-learning process of multiple elements of scientific
research has been considered important in the training of residents4-8.
Nevertheless, insufficient academic activity continues to be a problem common to
residency programs4,5. Specifically in Brazil9, 72.2% of plastic surgery residents of the
Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery (SBCP) in the Federal District had no
article published in the Brazilian Journal of Plastic Surgery
(Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica
[RBCP]), and the incentive to publish was among the
residents’ suggestions for the improvement of evaluated programs. Thus,
residency programs should encourage the scientific productivity of their
residents to ensure that future goals are achieved4-16.
The participation of residents in scientific production has been assessed mainly
in the international context4-8,11-15, and
Brazilian data related to the residency in plastic surgery are scarce and
regionally limited9,10,16. In addition, the proposals for training programs in
scientific research during medical residency have also been restricted to
international publications5-8,11,12,17.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study were (1) to outline a training program in scientific
research skills, (2) to evaluate the profile of participation of plastic surgery
residents in scientific articles, and (3) to analyze the impact of the program
on specific quantitative bibliometric indexes.
METHODS
Training program in scientific research skills
In line with the three-fold purpose (assistance, education, and research) of
our institution18, at the end of the
global training in plastic surgery, residents must also observe, collect,
and document data relevant to scientific research, and develop habits of
critical reading and scientific update with quality and planning, executing
and reporting research by adopting an appropriate scientific
methodology.
In February 2010, a training program of the foundations of scientific
production was implemented in the SOBRAPAR Hospital (Figure 1), following the principles laid down by
Mulliken19, which is “teach those
who follow—hoping that the young go further.” Although all three essential
attributes of a surgeon-scientist (curiosity, imagination, and persistence)
reported by Dr. Murray20 may be
intrinsic to some, we believe that the incentive for these three qualities
to be awakened and developed in training residents is part of the role of
all those involved in the residency.
Figure 1 - Scientific research skills training program of the SOBRAPAR
Hospital adapted from established programs in other
institutions
5-8,11,12,17. Administration, guidance, and funding are
fundamental components of this process of teaching and learning
because the presence of dedicated researchers (tutors/advisors),
with funding and infrastructure, plays a positive role in the
promotion of scientific productivity. The following are the
three main focuses: training of clinical and surgical skills,
training in research skills (teaching-learning about the “art
and science” of scientific research in plastic surgery with
“protected” time for research distributed within the training
base) and the personal needs of the residents (financial
stability and maintenance of a healthy balance between private
life and work).
Figure 1 - Scientific research skills training program of the SOBRAPAR
Hospital adapted from established programs in other
institutions
5-8,11,12,17. Administration, guidance, and funding are
fundamental components of this process of teaching and learning
because the presence of dedicated researchers (tutors/advisors),
with funding and infrastructure, plays a positive role in the
promotion of scientific productivity. The following are the
three main focuses: training of clinical and surgical skills,
training in research skills (teaching-learning about the “art
and science” of scientific research in plastic surgery with
“protected” time for research distributed within the training
base) and the personal needs of the residents (financial
stability and maintenance of a healthy balance between private
life and work).
In fact, most residents do not have experience in scientific research and
require formal instruction on research4 because without adequate training and motivation, many of them
will finish the residency without any knowledge about the scientific
process.
As the training in scientific research requires motivation and attention,
uninterrupted focus, and repetitive practice with constructive feedback,
residents have been encouraged to participate actively in all the stages
that make up a research project, always under the supervision of a
tutor21 and, if possible, with
the support of a resident with research experience8. These residents, generally, with an experience in
research, assist in the teaching-learning process of basic
research/essential skills (e.g., careful review of the literature, design of
methods of analysis, and structuring of complete articles) and guide
residents regarding the choice of projects and advisors. Thus, residents
with an experience in research have acted as a bridge between the residents
with less research experience and the advisors, decreasing the time required
for research supervised by tutor surgeons and, consequently, optimizing the
scientific production4,5,8.
Our residents have a “protected” time for research, within the base hours,
specifically for research (delineate, perform, analyze, present, and
publish) without extending the total training time4,5,8,17. Instead
of elective or mandatory courses exclusive for research that will
potentially reduce their participation in relevant surgical training
practice, we prefer the longitudinal distribution of periods during the 3
years of training, with flexibility between the workload for the
clinical-surgical training and scientific research, and as a consequence,
the knowledge acquired in research is applied daily in clinical-surgical
practice (and vice versa)4,5,8,17.
Once a month, a morning (or afternoon) has been devoted exclusively to the
scientific part of the training program6,22. In
particular, the resident with research experience is responsible for the
workshop that explores a series of scientific skills in a
didactic-interactive manner. The number and order of the workshops
(formulation of hypotheses, design of the studies, data collection, patient
selection, critical review of the literature, methods of analysis,
statistical techniques, principles of evidence-based medicine, integration
of the findings of the survey with the data available in the literature,
preparation, paper submission and review, conflicts of interests, and
funding sources and mechanisms) are distributed within the grid of the
program in accordance with the projects in progress or requests of
residents.
Seminars presented by invited researchers, teachers, tutors, and/or residents
with research experience complement the period focused on research. In
addition to these monthly meetings/workshops, residents meet with advisors
and/or residents with research experience in accordance with their
individual needs. Thus, many “tips and tricks” useful to write and publish
scientific articles can be exchanged between residents, tutors, and advisors
throughout this process of teaching and learning.
Completely unjustifiable errors (e.g., plagiarism and manipulation or
falsification of data) and the need to anticipate and modify questions
related to potential problems of articles (e.g., limitations of the study)
have also been the target of teaching because it may increase the efficacy
of the residents (“produce more in less time”) and also reduce the odds of
frustrations.
In addition, the monthly meetings are also intended for the presentation of
projects, abstracts, or full articles developed by the residents, while
other residents, interns, tutors, and advisors actively discuss the
scientific details in a format of constructive feedback. More specifically,
the different scientific skills are acquired and applied in accordance with
the stage in which the residents are. At the end of the first year, they are
invited to present the initial proposal of their project to the tutors of
the institution, and then the design and the viability of the project are
evaluated seriously and constructively. From 2 to 4 months later, a reviewed
research proposal is presented for final approval; the residents then are
encouraged to submit their results in scientific events and then write a
first version of the complete article.
It is not our intention to create rivalry or increase competitiveness; in
fact, we believe that the residents must not form an integral part of the
increased competition present in the academic environment to increase
scientific productivity, which can be symbolized by the motto “publish or
perish.” Therefore, the requirement is not of a publication per
se, but rather of full participation in research projects.
On the other hand, residents with a strong desire to participate in research
have been stimulated to produce more projects and, consequently, more
articles; however, we take care to ensure that they are not used as
“crutches” to increase the overall productivity of the institution. Thus, in
our program, the “quality” of the research has been more relevant than the
“quantity,” although the completion of one or two research projects and
publishing one or two articles in peer-reviewed journals during the
residency is a basic objective.
Completing a scientifically sound research project during the residency can
be a difficult task and represents a challenge for the residents without
prior training in research. As each step of this process (e.g., identifying
a research question, formulation of the project, consolidation of the method
of analysis, evaluation of the institutional ethics committee, collection
and storage of data, and statistical analysis) is subject to unexpected
delays and given the relatively short duration of residency, such delays can
be discouraging4,5.
Thus, in a training environment with increasingly limited time, such steps
should be facilitated, always pondering on the actual attainment of skills
and knowledge required in each step of the training. For this reason, some
measures (e.g., provide a list of ongoing projects with additional branches
or new projects, using established databanks, assist in the submission to
the ethics committee, and provide assistance to statistical implementation
and interpretation) can accelerate the process, and therefore, increase the
participation of residents4,5.
In addition, as a way to reduce the need for funding and complex
infrastructures, residents have been encouraged to perform studies based on
analysis of medical records or secondary studies (e.g., systematic reviews),
or surveys that may be conducted with the resources of the institution.
The basic program described here is flexible and has been adapted in
accordance with the needs, new obstacles encountered, and current
trends5-8,11,12,17.
Furthermore, it is important that during the training, the desires and
perceptions of residents (e.g., personal responsibility, focus, idealism,
and perseverance) are taken into account.
Thus, along with the global education format designed for all residents, a
methodology for individualized teaching-learning may be required to improve
individual specific deficits because we recognize that our training program
in scientific research does not allow all aspects involved in the “art and
science” of writing and publishing scientific articles to be fully taught to
all residents during the 3 years of training.
Thus, we have also encouraged residents to learn research skills outside the
preset training program (i.e., a self-regulated, deliberate, and repetitive
training), for example, with the help of books and articles about the “art
and science” of the elaboration of scientific articles.
Bibliometric analysis
A descriptive and quantitative bibliometric analysis23 was performed to characterize the profile of the
participation of plastic surgery residents of the SOBRAPAR Hospital in
scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals, between January
2006 and February 2014. To evaluate the impact of the training program on
this participation, the global period (2006–2014) was divided into two
periods (January 2006 to January 2010 [period A] and February 2010 to
February 2014 [period B]), which coincide exactly with the absence and
presence of the formal training program, respectively.
Quantitative bibliometric data23
regarding the number of articles, number of authors, position of residents
among authors, titles, indexation bases, presence of journal impact factor,
language of articles, presence of statistical analysis, presence of
hypothesis in the body of the article, study designs, and level of evidence
(levels of evidence I to V according to the American Society of Plastic
Surgeons Evidence Rating Scales16,24) were
extracted from each article included by an independent author to avoid
inter-rater bias25.
Levels of evidence I and II, and III, IV, and V were classified as high and
low levels of evidence, respectively24,25. The
weighted average of the level of evidence followed the formula, (percentage
of articles by level of evidence ´ level of evidence)/10016,24.
This study followed the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki of
1964 and further amendments and was approved by the local ethics committee
(003/2018).
Statistical analysis
As in other studies5-8,10,11, inter-period comparative analyses (A vs B) were
particularly performed to characterize the impact of the training program on
specific quantitative bibliometric variables. The Mann-Whitney tests,
equality of two proportions, and confidence interval for the mean were used
for the comparative analyses. For all statistical tests, significance levels
of 5% (p < 0.05) and 95% confidence intervals were
set.
The data were compiled in Excel 2013 for Windows (Office Home and Student
2013, Microsoft Corporation, USA), and all analyses were performed using the
program Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 20 for Windows
(SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).
RESULTS
Numbers of scientific articles and authors
Twenty-two articles were published with the participation of residents
between 2006 and 2014, with a mean of 2.75 ± 2.37 (1–6) articles/year. The
mean number of published articles was 1.75 ± 2.36 (2–5) and 3.75 ± 2.22
(1–6) articles/year in periods A and B, respectively. Of the residents who
completed training in plastic surgery, 50% and 100% had articles published
in periods A and B (p < 0.05), respectively.
The inter-period comparative analysis revealed a significant increase (p <
0.05) in the number of published articles, with an increase of 114.28%
between periods A and B (Table 1).
Five (71.43%) and four published articles (26.67%) in periods A and B (p
< 0.05), respectively, had one resident among the authors. Overall and
intra-period evaluations revealed a significant (p <
0.05) prevalence of articles without residents as the corresponding author
(Table 1).
Table 1 - Quantitative bibliometric indexes (numbers of scientific articles
and authors of scientific articles [n = 22]), with the participation
of plastic surgery residents published before (January 2006 to
January 2010, period A) and after (February 2010 to February 2014,
period B) the implementation of the scientific research skills
training program.
| Periods |
Number of articles n (%) |
Number of authors/articles Mean
± SD (V) [Median; Q1-Q3]
|
Number of residents/articles Mean
± SD(V) [Median; Q1-Q3]
|
Resident of plastic surgery |
| First author (Present/Absent) n (%) |
Second author (Present/Absent)n (%) |
Corresponding author (Present/Absent) n
(%)
|
| A |
7 (31.82)* |
6 ± 1.82 (3-9)[6; 5.5-6.5] |
1.86 ± 1.35 (1-4)[1; 1-2.5] |
3 (42.86)/4 (57.14) |
2(40)/5(60) |
2 (28.57)/5 (71.43)** |
| B |
15 (68.18)* |
6.13 ± 2.06 (4-12) [6; 5-7] |
2.53 ± 1.50 (1-6)[2; 1-3.5] |
5 (33.33)/10 (66.67) |
8 (53.33)/7 (46.67) |
0(0)/15(100)** |
| Global |
22(100) |
6.09 ± 1.95 (3-12) [6; 5-7] |
2.32 ± 1.49 (1-6)[2; 1-3.75] |
8 (36.36)/14 (63.64) |
10 (45.45)/12 (54.55) |
2 (9.09)/20 (90.91)*** |
Table 1 - Quantitative bibliometric indexes (numbers of scientific articles
and authors of scientific articles [n = 22]), with the participation
of plastic surgery residents published before (January 2006 to
January 2010, period A) and after (February 2010 to February 2014,
period B) the implementation of the scientific research skills
training program.
Journals, impact factor, indexing databases, and language
The overall analysis revealed a significant predominance (p
< 0.05) of articles published in the RBCP and
Brazilian Journal of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery
(Revista Brasileira de Craniomaxillofacial Surgery),
without an impact factor, in the Scientific Eletronic Library
Online (SciELO) e Literatura Latino-americana e do Caribe em
Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) databases and in the Portuguese language. The
inter-period evaluation revealed a significant increase and reduction
(p < 0.05) of articles published in English and
Portuguese, respectively.
The intra-period evaluation showed a significant predominance
(p < 0.05) of articles published in journals with no
impact factor (Table 2). Five
articles (33.33%) from period B were published in journals with an impact
factor established in the Journal Citation Reports® (JCR; Thomson Reuters)
as follows: 3.535 (Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, one
article [6.67%]), 1.564 (Aesthetic Surgery Journal, one
article [6.67%]), and 0.686 (Journal of Craniofacial
Surgery, two articles [13.33%]; Table 2).
Table 2 - Quantitative bibliometric indexes (journals, impact factor,
indexing databases, and language) of scientific articles (n = 22),
with the participation of plastic surgery residents published before
(January 2006 to January 2010, period A) and after (February 2010 to
February 2014, period B) the implementation of the scientific
research skills training program.
| Period |
Journal n (%) |
IF |
Indexing database n (%) |
Language of the articles n
(%)
|
| RBCP |
RBCCM |
JCS |
Other |
(present/absent) n (%) |
ISI/Medline |
Medline |
sciELO |
LILACS |
Port |
Port/Eng |
Eng |
| A |
3(42.86) |
4(57.14) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
0(0)/7(100)¥ |
0(0) |
0(0) |
4(57.14) |
3(42.86) |
7(100)*** |
0(0) |
0(0)# |
| B |
5(33.33) |
4(26.67) |
2(13.33) |
4(26.67) |
4 (26.67)/11 (73.33)¥ |
4(26.67) |
2(13.33) |
4(26.67) |
5(33.33) |
6(40)*** |
3(20) |
6(40)# |
| Global |
8(36.36)* |
8(36.36)* |
2(9.09)* |
4(18.18)* |
4 (18.18)/18 (81.82)¥ |
4(18.18) |
2(9.09)** |
8(36.36)** |
8(36.36)** |
13(59.09)## |
3(13.64)## |
6(27.27)## |
Table 2 - Quantitative bibliometric indexes (journals, impact factor,
indexing databases, and language) of scientific articles (n = 22),
with the participation of plastic surgery residents published before
(January 2006 to January 2010, period A) and after (February 2010 to
February 2014, period B) the implementation of the scientific
research skills training program.
Statistical analysis, assumptions, study design, and level of
evidence
Global and intra-period comparisons revealed a significant predominance
(p < 0.05) of articles without assumptions,
retrospective studies, and level of evidence III (Table 3). The global weighted average level of evidence
was 3.05. The weighted average of the level of evidence were 2.86 and 3.13
in periods A and B (p = 0.532), respectively.
Table 3 - Quantitative bibliometric indexes (statistical analysis,
assumptions, study design, and level of evidence) of scientific
articles (n = 22), with the participation of plastic surgery
residents published before (January/2006-January/2010, period A) and
after (February/2010-February/2014, period B) the implementation of
the scientific research skills training program.
| Periods |
Statistical analysis
(Present/Absent) n (%)
|
Hypotheses* (Present/Absent) n
(%)
|
Study designn (%) |
Level of evidence* n (%) |
Level ofevidence (weighted average) Mean
± SD
|
| |
Prospective |
Retrospective |
Case Report |
I |
II |
III |
IV |
V |
(Median; Q1-Q3) |
| A |
4(57.14)/3(42.86) |
0(0)/7(100) |
1(14.29) |
6(85.71) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
1(14.29) |
6(85.71) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
2.86 ± 0.38 (3; 3-3) |
| B |
8(53.33)/7(46.67) |
5(33.33)/10(66.67) |
2(13.33) |
11(73.33) |
2(13.33) |
0(0) |
2(13.33) |
11(73.33) |
0(0) |
2(13.33) |
3.13 ± 0.83 (3; 3-3) |
| Global |
12(54.55)/10(45.45) |
5(22.73)/17(77.27) |
3(13.64) |
17(77.27) |
2(9.09) |
0(0) |
3(13.64) |
17(77.27) |
0(0) |
2(9.09) |
3.05 ± 0.72 (3; 3-3) |
Table 3 - Quantitative bibliometric indexes (statistical analysis,
assumptions, study design, and level of evidence) of scientific
articles (n = 22), with the participation of plastic surgery
residents published before (January/2006-January/2010, period A) and
after (February/2010-February/2014, period B) the implementation of
the scientific research skills training program.
A significant predominance (p < 0.05) was observed among
the articles with a low level of evidence (86.36%, 85.71%, and 86.67% of the
articles had level of evidence III or V in the overall period, periods A and
B, respectively) when compared with articles of a high level of evidence
(13.64%, 14.29%, and 13.33% of the articles presented level of evidence II
in the overall period, period A, and period B, respectively; Table 3).
DISCUSSION
Participation in scientific research has been considered a vital component for
the growth and development of residents in training4-8-12,16,17,26-28.
Accordingly, one group27 reported that
the training programs in plastic surgery in Canada need to do more than just
encourage residents to participate in scientific research activities and must
also find solutions to problems (funding, protected time, and support from
mentors/advisors).
We also place participation in research among the basic needs of residents in
training. However, like numerous authors5-8,11,12,17,27, we believe
that before (or together with) the obligation of publication, curricular,
structural, and support modifications should be well established.
Although 66.7% of the Brazilian plastic surgery residents evaluated in a recent
study9 presented abstracts in SBCP
events, only 27.8% of them had works published in the RBCP. It
is important that residents should apply the thinking of Dr. Murray, which is
“The abstract is just a work in progress”22.
We have taught and encouraged residents to publish abstracts presented in
scientific events as full articles, as this allows for the consolidation of the
quality and validity of scientific research and expands the dissemination of
information and makes it lasting22. As
demonstrated in previous studies5,7,13, our research
training program resulted in significant increases in the total numbers of
published articles and articles with more than one resident among the
authors.
In the specific context of residency, the order of appearance of the authors in
scientific articles is a relevant aspect. We have consistently taught and
encouraged residents on the criteria of authorship (International Committee of
Medical Journal Editors), including the principle that those who had purely
technical input (surgical procedure, slide analysis, head of department/service
or funding) should not be listed among the authors.
However, we realize that young authors-residents tend to erroneously adopt “given
authorship” by placing the names of those who did not substantially participate
in the design, drafting, or revision of the article. This is usually done by
feeling “pressured” just to maintain good interpersonal relationships and/or
because resident authors often do not have minimal knowledge about the rules
governing scientific authorship29.
In addition, as residents may feel uncomfortable in questioning authorship,
honesty, trust, fairness, professionalism, and academic integrity disputes, for
having limited (or absent) research experience and are in “vulnerable
positions”29, they can easily be
“removed” from the first position. In fact, greed and lack of sincerity of
authors with more research experience can frequently sabotage any efforts put
into an honest and authentic setting of the order of appearance of the
authors29.
To avoid this potentially hostile bias towards the author-resident, we rigorously
adopted the authorship criteria based on scientific merit (“the laurels of
victory to all those who truly deserve”) and revealed no significant
predominance in the proportion of articles without residents as first or second
author, which is in accordance with the trends found in similar studies5,11,14.
In this context, Mulliken19 defined that
“the first author is the one who does the work and writes the first draft—even
if he does not know what he is talking about.” However, we believe that this
concept does not apply completely to the Brazilian scenario. In the United
States, the residents are encouraged to publish during the entire medical
training and only those with satisfactory academic productions have reached top
rankings in the selection processes of plastic surgery training programs3.
In contrast to this condition, as a rule, the training programs in Brazilian
plastic surgery select the “best” residents through a process based mainly (90%
of the potential final grade) on an exclusively theoretical or
theoretical-practical (minority of services) evaluation of their global and
specific medical knowledge, partially ignoring scientific production.
In fact, the background of research of candidates have been investigated in the
framework of the global curriculum analysis (10% of the final potential grade),
and the criteria established often do not follow any standards of measurement of
scientific production adopted in the academic world. Thus, medical students and
residents of Brazilian general surgery end up not identifying any direct
advantages in focusing their efforts on the participation in scientific
research. In addition, they can use “shortcuts” to achieve good grades in
curriculum analysis, such as presenting numerous abstracts at scientific events
rather than producing a single full article.
In this context, unlike the proposal by Mulliken19, we believe that the first version of the article usually does
not mean anything, especially when little effort was used in its elaboration
(e.g., absence of correct and detailed literature review). It is not uncommon to
note that the main objective of the resident is, in fact, completing the article
without worrying about the “quality” presented.
Therefore, in our institution, the order of the authors of an article involving
prospective data has been discussed and defined before the organizing and
writing process, and specific authorship criteria (longitudinal collection of
data, careful analysis of the pertinent literature, creation of hypotheses to
improve the surgical techniques and patient care, organization of ideas, and
writing with “quality”) have been adopted particularly in those articles.
Furthermore, a tutor/mentor should “reward” the student/resident with the first
position of an important article in which merit stands out because residents are
still in training and a “reward” based on their attitudes (perseverance and
dedication) can motivate them to go forward.
All these aspects have been detailed in the beginning of the teaching-learning
process; with all this in mind, residents may take into account if participation
in the project will be rewarding and meaningful for their training. We hope that
this authorship normalization can serve as a stimulus for the resident to
participate in future academic projects and act as a motivator to beginner
residents who may also want to be among the authors of an article, and
therefore, have to pass through many stages of the teaching and learning process
until acquiring the necessary research skills.
The weight of clinical and surgical training (requirements established by the
National Commission of Medical Residency of the Ministry of Education
[CNRM/MEC], Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery [SBCP], and services accredited
by the SBCP) and scientific training (research method, knowledge of computer
science, statistics, review and interpretation of the literature, academic
issues, ethical issues, criteria for authorship and scientific contributions,
elaboration of complete articles, and peer review process, among others) should
be balanced, and the obligations and requirements should vary according to the
year of training of the plastic surgery resident.
The overlap between the three main purposes (Figure 1) creates additional needs and requirements, including developing
the identities of plastic surgery residents as researchers and plastic surgeons
(integration with peers, including researchers and non-researchers as residents,
plastic surgeons, practitioners of other medical areas, and other health
professionals) and rotations in other settings (regardless of area).
This program should be dynamic and flexible and should be continually revised and
updated according to the changes and needs of the plastic surgery residents,
with the requirements laid down by the bodies that regulate medical residency
programs and following global scientific trends.
Future studies should incorporate the training of those responsible for the
education of residents and test this aspect as a potential variable for
improving the teaching-learning process of research skills.
Furthermore, the research performed by residents has the potential to contribute
to the academic growth of the field of plastic surgery, including efforts to
increase the overall level of evidence published by the community of plastic
surgeons16,24,25.
For this reason, besides the educational measures described herein, the garnering
of financial aid for complex projects and modifications at national level in
aspects such as extensive curricular changes16,24 and
transformations in the selection process (e.g., increasing the emphasis in the
research experience, including peer-reviewed publications, with the adoption of
internationally used score scales15)
depend on a joint initiative between the different Brazilian organs (CNRM/MEC,
SBCP, CNPq, among others).
As more residents acquire scientific competencies and develop a passion for the
“art and science” of scientific research27, a new generation of academic plastic surgeons will emerge in the
coming years, as reported in other medical fields5,7,13.
CONCLUSIONS
This study outlined a training program in scientific research, presented a
bibliometric profile of participation of plastic surgery residents in published
scientific articles, and demonstrated that the implementation of the program
increased research activity during the residency.
COLLABORATIONS
|
RD
|
Analysis and/or interpretation of data; statistical analysis; final
approval of the manuscript; data collection; conception and design
of the study; project management; methodology; completion of
operations and/or experiments; and writing of the original
manuscript.
|
|
CARA
|
Analysis and/or interpretation of data; final approval of the
manuscript; and review and editing of the manuscript.
|
|
EG
|
Analysis and/or interpretation of data; final approval of the
manuscript; and review and editing of the manuscript.
|
|
CLB
|
Analysis and/or interpretation of data; final approval of the
manuscript; writing - review and editing.
|
|
CERA
|
Analysis and/or interpretation of data; final approval of the
manuscript; methodology; and review and editing of the
manuscript.
|
REFERENCES
1. Barreto ML. The challenge of assessing the impact of science beyond
bibliometrics. Rev Saúde Pública. 2013;47(4):834-7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-8910.2013047005073
2. DeLong MR, Hughes DB, Tandon VJ, Choi BD, Zenn MR. Factors
influencing fellowship selection, career trajectory, and academic productivity
among plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(3):730-6. PMID:
24572862
3. Nagarkar P, Pulikkottil B, Patel A, Rohrich RJ. So you want to
become a plastic surgeon? What you need to do and know to get into a plastic
surgery residency. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(2):419-22.
4. Rothberg MB. Overcoming the obstacles to research during residency:
what does it take? JAMA. 2012;308(21):2191-2.
5. Rothberg MB, Kleppel R, Friderici JL, Hinchey K. Implementing a
resident research program to overcome barriers to resident research. Acad Med.
2014;89(8):1133-9.
6. Basu Ray I, Henry TL, Davis W, Alam J, Amedee RG, Pinsky WW.
Consolidated academic and research exposition: a pilot study of an innovative
education method to increase residents' research involvement. Ochsner J.
2012;12(4):367-72.
7. Panchal AR, Denninghoff KR, Munger B, Keim SM. Scholar quest: a
residency research program aligned with faculty goals. West J Emerg Med.
2014;15(3):299-305. PMID: 24868308
8. Lennon RP, Oberhofer AL, McNair V, Keck JW. Curriculum changes to
increase research in a family medicine residency program. Fam Med.
2014;46(4):294-8.
9. Batista KT, Pacheco LMS, Silva LM. Evaluation of plastic surgery
residency programs in Distrito Federal. Rev Bras Cir Plást.
2013;28(1):20-8.
10. Arruda FCF, Paula PRS. Publicação dos residentes de cirurgia
plástica em serviços credenciados - análise comparativa de 10 anos. Rev Bras Cir
Plást. 2015;30(3):398-402.
11. Manring MM, Panzo JA, Mayerson JL. A framework for improving
resident research participation and scholarly output. J Surg Educ.
2014;71(1):8-13. PMID: 24411416
12. Wagner RF Jr, Raimer SS, Kelly BC. Incorporating resident research
into the dermatology residency program. Adv Med Educ Pract.
2013;4:77-81.
13. Ahmad S, De Oliveira GS Jr, McCarthy RJ. Status of anesthesiology
resident research education in the United States: structured education programs
increase resident research productivity. Anesth Analg. 2013;116(1):205-10. PMID:
23223116
14. Morgan PB, Sopka DM, Kathpal M, Haynes JC, Lally BE, Li L. First
author research productivity of United States radiation oncology residents:
2002-2007. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74(5):1567-72.
15. Emerick T, Metro D, Patel R, Sakai T. Scholarly activity points: a
new tool to evaluate resident scholarly productivity. Br J Anaesth.
2013;111(3):468-76.
16. Denadai R, Raposo-Amaral CE. Levels of evidence in plastic surgery:
an analysis of resident involvement. J Craniofac Surg.
2014;25(4):1573-5.
17. Arbuckle MR, Gordon JA, Pincus HA, Oquendo MA. Bridging the gap:
supporting translational research careers through an integrated research track
within residency training. Acad Med. 2013;88(6):759-65.
18. Raposo-Amaral CE, Raposo-Amaral CA. Changing face of cleft care:
specialized centers in developing countries. J Craniofac Surg.
2012;23(1):206-9.
19. Mulliken JB. The molders of this plastic surgeon and his quest for
symmetry. J Craniofac Surg. 2004;15(6):898-908.
20. Mulliken JB. Sense of wonder. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20(Suppl
1):603-7.
21. Franzblau LE, Kotsis SV, Chung KC. Mentorship: concepts and
application to plastic surgery training programs. Plast Reconstr Surg.
2013;131(5):837e-43e. PMID: 23629123
22. Smart RJ, Susarla SM, Kaban LB, Dodson TB. Factors associated with
converting scientific abstracts to published manuscripts. J Craniofac Surg.
2013;24(1):66-70.
23. Durieux V, Gevenois PA. Bibliometric indicators: quality
measurements of scientific publication. Radiology. 2010;255(2):342-51. PMID:
20413749
24. Denadai R, Raposo-Amaral CE. The level of evidence published in a
partner Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: Revista Brasileira de
Cirurgia Plástica. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(2):242e-4e. PMID:
24469216
25. Chuback JE, Yarascavitch BA, Eaves F 3rd, Thoma A, Bhandari M.
Evidence in the aesthetic surgical literature over the past decade: how far have
we come? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(1):126e-34e.
26. Rohrich RJ, Robinson JB Jr, Adams WP Jr. The plastic surgery
research fellow: revitalizing an important asset. Plast Reconstr Surg.
1998;102(3):895-8. PMID: 9727462
27. Ferron CE, Lemaine V, Leblanc B, Nikolis A, Brutus JP. Recent
Canadian plastic surgery graduates: are they prepared for the real world? Plast
Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(3):1031-6. PMID: 20195130
28. Mayer HF. Post-graduate training in plastic surgery at the
department of Professor Ivo Pitanguy: a report. Int Surg.
2003;88(1):55-8.
29. Bavdekar SB. Authorship issues. Lung India.
2012;29(1):76-80.
1. Hospital SOBRAPAR, Instituto de Cirurgia
Plástica Craniofacial, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
2. Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Universidade
Estadual de Campinas, Departamento de Neurologia, Campinas, SP,
Brazil.
Corresponding author: Rafael Denadai, Av. Adolpho Lutz, 100 -
Cidade Universitária - Campinas, SP, Brazil, Zip Code 13083-880. E-mail:
denadai.rafael@hotmail.com
Article received: July 20, 2018.
Article accepted: November 11, 2018.
Conflicts of interest: none.
