Monday, June 18, 2018

Some data is better than no data at all

Do you believe that?

I heard it frequently when the infamous Propublica Surgeon Scorecard first appeared three years ago. Back then I blogged about it saying “To me, bad data is worse than no data at all.”

A recent study in BJU International confirmed my thoughts about this type of publicly posted data and identified a previously unreported issue. The paper attempted to determine whether the public was able to accurately interpret statistics used in the Surgeon Scorecard. It turns out they were not very good at it.

Investigators from the Department of Urology at the University of Minnesota surveyed 343 people who attended the Minnesota State Fair in 2016. Those who took the survey had a median age of 48, were 60% female, 80% white, and 60% college educated. Their median annual income was $26,550 with an interquartile range of $22,882-$32,587.

Sunday, June 3, 2018

The dark side of academic research

A new study found several senior academic surgeons had published papers in what used to be termed “predatory journals.” The newer, gentler term is “solicited publishing,” but it defines the same pay-to-play, low quality publications.

Surgeons from the University of California, San Diego examined 110 emails sent to the senior author from 29 publishers during a six-week period and early 2017. Nearly all were requesting manuscript submissions. The 29 publishers represented 113 different surgery journals most of which had existed for two years or less. Only 12 were indexed in PubMed, and of the 9 that mentioned a self-reported impact factor, the median was 0.24 which means they had less than one citation per article in the last two years. The median publication fee for the 88 journals posting the information was $755.

Emails from the publishers contained a mean of 9.6 grammatical errors, possibly because more than half had addresses in foreign countries, and of those with US addresses, 30% were residential.