Contemporary Academic Contributions From Anesthesiologists in Adult Critical Care Medicine
BACKGROUND: Anesthesiology has a long relationship with critical care medicine (CCM). However, US anesthesiologists are less likely to practice CCM than non-US anesthesiologists. To date, no studies have compared academic contributions in CCM between US anesthesiologists and non-US anesthesiologists. The objective of our study was to use recent trends in critical care publications as a surrogate for academic contribution among US and non-US anesthesiologists. METHODS: Research articles published between 2010 and 2015 in 3 anesthesiology journals (Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, and British Journal of Anaesthesia) and 3 multidisciplinary CCM journals (Critical Care Medicine, Intensive Care Medicine, and Journal of Critical Care) were reviewed. Author information, including the primary department appointment and geographic location for the first and senior author(s), and article details, including topic and publication type, were collected. Odds ratios for having a first or senior author from the United States were calculated. Anesthesiologists’ contributions in individual journals were summarized, as were trends in anesthesiology CCM publications during the 6-year study period. RESULTS: A total of 3831 articles were reviewed, with 1050 (27.4%) having US authors. Eighty-two and one-half percent of CCM articles in anesthesiology journals had a US anesthesiologist as first author, and 81% had a US anesthesiologist as senior author, while fewer CCM articles in multidisciplinary journals had a US anesthesiologist as first (12.1%) or senior (12.3%) author. When considering all publications, 16.3% and 16.4% of articles had a US anesthesiologist as the first or senior author compared with articles for which non-US anesthesiologists were first (23.8%) or senior (20.9%) authors. The odds of having a US anesthesiologist as first or senior author compared to a non-US anesthesiologist for all publications were 0.6 (0.5–0.7) and 0.7 (0.6–0.9). The number of publications trended downward for both US anesthesiologists and non-US anesthesiologists during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: When compared to non-US anesthesiologists, US anesthesiologists had more CCM publications in anesthesiology journals and fewer publications in multidisciplinary CCM journals. The number of anesthesiology CCM publications decreased for both US and non-US anesthesiologists throughout the study period. Copyright © 2018 International Anesthesia Research Society