Scholarly Activity of Anesthesiology Residents

Field: Health Professions (Health Sciences)

To the Editor We read with interest the article by Ford et al1 entitled “Progressive Increase in Scholarly Productivity of New American Board of Anesthesiology Diplomates from 2006 to 2016: A Bibliometric Analysis” and the accompanying editorial by Gaiser2 in the April 2019 issue of Anesthesia & Analgesia. In assessing scholarly productivity by residents graduating from approved anesthesiology residencies, Ford et al1 limited their analysis to publications that can be found on PubMed. This limitation was acknowledged in the article and in the editorial. In the editorial, Dr Gaiser stated “…all aspects of resident publications as well as research must be examined to truly understand the current status.” The purpose of this Letter to the Editor is to point out to the readers of Anesthesia & Analgesia 1 substantial example of a non-PubMed resident publication that has been a highly successful book published by Springer entitled Clinical Anesthesiology: Lessons Learned From Morbidity and Mortality Conferences. This book has been 90% authored by University of California San Diego (UCSD) Anesthesiology residents. Volume I was edited by J. Benumof, MD, and Volume II was edited by J. Benumof, MD, and G. Manecke, MD. Volume I—now 4 years old—has averaged a phenomenal rate of 30,000 online “looks” per year (10,000–15,000 per year is considered good to excellent). Volume II will be published in May of 2019, and Volume III is well underway. For 90% of the total of 100 chapters in the first 2 volumes, the subject matter of each case chapter was first presented at a UCSD Morbidity and Mortality conference by the resident and then the resident wrote the case chapter for the book under the editorial guidance of Drs Benumof and Manecke. This relatively large-scale and successful chapter writing activity by the UCSD residents certainly fits within the broadened definition of respected “other” scholarly activity mentioned by Dr Gaiser and espoused by both the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education and Boyer.3 This type of scholarly activity can be a very valuable part of an anesthesiologists’ education and training, as well as to anesthesiology at large. It falls under Boyer category of “integration,” which involves critical assessment and application of medical literature, as well as systems-based practice. The ability to integrate and apply knowledge and experience is essential to all anesthesiologists, whether they be clinicians, educators, or researchers. Producing these chapters required considerable effort by the residents and the faculty—similar to that required for “PubMed” publications. The residents as well as the residency program and the discipline of Anesthesiology should receive significant credit for this high-quality scholarly productivity. We believe this type of activity should be encouraged. Research and PubMed publication are critical for the future of our specialty but other substantive academic efforts are as well. Future studies of scholarly productivity should include significant scholarly work that is not limited to PubMed publications. Jonathan L. Benumof, MDGerard R. Manecke, MDDepartment of AnesthesiologyUCSD Medical CenterSan Diego, California[email protected]