Review of research output of Australian and New Zealand colorectal surgeons over the past 20 years

• Main Authors: Jessica Rahme, Adele Lee, Mat (Matija) Radojcic, Pith Beh Soh, Satish Warrier, Alexander Heriot, Nikolajs Zeps, Michael Smits, Philip Smart
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: SAGE Publishing 2020-12-01
• Series: SAGE Open Medicine
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312120977116

Objectives: High-quality research has a tangible impact on patient care and should inform all medical decision-makings. Appraising and benchmarking of research is necessary in evidence-based medicine and allocation of funding. The aim of this review is to demonstrate how evidence may be gathered by quantifying the amount and type of research by a group of surgeons over a 20-year period. Methods: Members of the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand were identified in April 2020. A search of the Scopus database was conducted to quantify each surgeon’s research output from 1999 to 2020. Authorship details such as the Hirsch index and number of papers published were recorded, as were publication-related details. Results: 226 colorectal surgeons were included for analysis, producing a total of 5053 publications. The most frequent colorectal topics were colorectal cancer (32%, n  = 1617 of all publications), followed by pelvic floor disorders (4.3%, n  = 217) and inflammatory bowel disease (3.5%, n  = 177). 56% ( n  = 2830) of all publications were case series audits (21%, n  = 1061), expert opinion pieces (20%, n  = 1011) and cohort studies (15%, n  = 758). 7% ( n  = 354) were randomised control or non-randomised control trials, 3% ( n  = 152) were systematic reviews and 1% ( n  = 50) were meta-analyses. The top 10% ( n  = 23) of authors accounted for more than half (54%, n  = 2729) of manuscripts published. Conclusion: Australasian colorectal surgeons made a significant contribution to the medical literature over the past 20 years and the number of publications is increasing over time. A greater output of higher-level evidence research is needed. This information may be used to better allocate researcher funding and grants for future projects.