Dataset Information

The Congress Impact Factor: A proposal from board members of the World Society of Emergency Surgeons.it (WSES) and Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care (AcEMC).

ABSTRACT: Many scientific congresses and conferences are held every year around the world. The aim of the World Society of Emergency Surgeons.it (WSES) and Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care (AcEMC) was to develop a simple mathematical parameter as an indicator of academic quality and scientific validity of a congress. In this opinion article, a new metric, the Congress Impact Factor (IFc), is proposed taking into consideration the widely used Impact Factor as an indicator of journals' prestige and using H-index analysis. The IFc is derived from the mathematical ratio between the mean H-index of invited lecturers normalized for lecture topic and number of lectures in the conference. In case of multiple sessions, the mean of all IFc is calculated along with its standard deviation. We conclude that the IFc can be a useful measure for evaluating and comparing congress prestige, and may also represent a potentially useful parameter for improving academic curriculum and helping participants to choose the more prestigious meetings for their education.

SUBMITTER: De Simone B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6208567 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Congress Impact Factor: A proposal from board members of the World Society of Emergency Surgeons.it (WSES) and Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care (AcEMC).

De Simone Belinda B Ansaloni Luca L Kelly Micheal Denis MD Coccolini Federico F Sartelli Massimo M Di Saverio Salomone S Pisano Michele M Cervellin Gianfranco G Baiocchi Gianluca G Catena Fausto F

F1000Research 20180803

Many scientific congresses and conferences are held every year around the world. The aim of the World Society of Emergency Surgeons.it (WSES) and Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care (AcEMC) was to develop a simple mathematical parameter as an indicator of academic quality and scientific validity of a congress. In this opinion article, a new metric, the Congress Impact Factor (IFc), is proposed taking into consideration the widely used Impact Factor as an indicator of journals' prestige and us ...[more]

PMID: 30467521

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn contrast to adults, the situation for pediatric trauma care from an international point of view and the global management of severely injured children remain rather unclear. The current study investigates structural management of pediatric trauma in centers of different trauma levels as well as experiences with pediatric trauma management around the world.MethodsA web-survey had been distributed to the global mailing list of the World Society of Emergency Surgery from 10/2021-03/2022, investigating characteristics of respondents and affiliated hospitals, case-load of pediatric trauma patients, capacities and infrastructure for critical care in children, trauma team composition, clinical work-up and individual experiences with pediatric trauma management in response to patients´ age. The collaboration group was subdivided regarding sizes of affiliated hospitals to allow comparisons concerning hospital volumes. Comparable results were conducted to statistical analysis.ResultsA total of 133 participants from 34 countries, i.e. 5 continents responded to the survey. They were most commonly affiliated with larger hospitals (> 500 beds in 72.9%) and with level I or II trauma centers (82.0%), respectively. 74.4% of hospitals offer unrestricted pediatric medical care, but only 63.2% and 42.9% of the participants had sufficient experiences with trauma care in children ≤ 10 and ≤ 5 years of age (p = 0.0014). This situation is aggravated in participants from smaller hospitals (p < 0.01). With regard to hospital size (≤ 500 versus > 500 in-hospital beds), larger hospitals were more likely affiliated with advanced trauma centers, more elaborated pediatric intensive care infrastructure (p < 0.0001), treated children at all ages more frequently (p = 0.0938) and have higher case-loads of severely injured children < 12 years of age (p = 0.0009). Therefore, the majority of larger hospitals reserve either pediatric surgery departments or board-certified pediatric surgeons (p < 0.0001) and in-hospital trauma management is conducted more multi-disciplinarily. However, the majority of respondents does not feel prepared for treatment of severe pediatric trauma and call for special educational and practical training courses (overall: 80.2% and 64.3%, respectively).ConclusionsMulti-professional management of pediatric trauma and individual experiences with severely injured children depend on volumes, level of trauma centers and infrastructure of the hospital. However, respondents from hospitals at all levels of trauma care complain about an alarming lack of knowledge on pediatric trauma management.

Project description:BackgroundVisual field (VF) testing in combination with a specialized VF analysis software is critical for characterizing and monitoring visual loss in glaucoma. Although performing glaucoma progression analysis requires original VF data rather than printouts or image files, extent of VF data transfer between referring and referred ophthalmologists is unclear. Here, we surveyed glaucoma specialists who belong to the Japan Glaucoma Society (JGS).MethodsAn internet survey of daily practice patterns regarding electronic VF data transfer at the time of glaucoma referrals (referring/referred) was sent to all 50 JGS board members. The survey consisted with 11 questionnaires, and the response rate was 100%.ResultsThe respondents included 33 university hospital ophthalmologists (66%) (Q1), and those scattered throughout Japan (Q2). All respondents used Humphrey Visual Filed Analyzer (HFA) (Q3) and at least one of a VF progression analysis software (Q4). Ten respondents (20%) actively transferred electronic VF data, while 40 (80%) did not (Q5). The major reasons for not actively transferring data electronically were that there was no support for data transfer by neighboring (n = 26, 65%) and/or own (25, 63%) institutes (Q6). All 40 inactive respondents responded that electronic data transfer is ideal (Q7). All 10 active respondents transferred data using USB flash memory (Q8). Of the 10 active respondents, seven (70%) reported that the percentage of referral letters accompanying electronic VF data in a format that allows for progression analysis from the beginning was less than 25% (Q9). When the referral letters did not accompany the electronic VF data, four (40%) reported that they further requested the data transfer in < 25% of cases (Q10). When the 10 active respondents were requested to transfer data, six (60%) had experienced rejection due to various reasons (Q11).ConclusionAn internet survey showed that 80% of the JGS board members were not actively transferring VF data mainly because of the absence of a system in place at institutions for sending and receiving data, although they feel that the electronic VF data transfer is ideal. The results provide basic data for future discussions on the promotion of the VF data transfer.

Project description:Background and aimsAlthough rectal cancer is predominantly a disease of older patients, current guidelines do not incorporate optimal treatment recommendations for the elderly and address only partially the associated specific challenges encountered in this population. This results in a wide variation and disparity in delivering a standard of care to this subset of patients. As the burden of rectal cancer in the elderly population continues to increase, it is crucial to assess whether current recommendations on treatment strategies for the general population can be adopted for the older adults, with the same beneficial oncological and functional outcomes. This multidisciplinary experts' consensus aims to refine current rectal cancer-specific guidelines for the elderly population in order to help to maximize rectal cancer therapeutic strategies while minimizing adverse impacts on functional outcomes and quality of life for these patients.MethodsThe discussion among the steering group of clinical experts and methodologists from the societies' expert panel involved clinicians practicing in general surgery, colorectal surgery, surgical oncology, geriatric oncology, geriatrics, gastroenterologists, radiologists, oncologists, radiation oncologists, and endoscopists. Research topics and questions were formulated, revised, and unanimously approved by all experts in two subsequent modified Delphi rounds in December 2020-January 2021. The steering committee was divided into nine teams following the main research field of members. Each conducted their literature search and drafted statements and recommendations on their research question. Literature search has been updated up to 2020 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. A modified Delphi methodology was implemented to reach agreement among the experts on all statements and recommendations.ConclusionsThe 2021 SICG-SIFIPAC-SICE-WSES consensus for the multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer aims to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: epidemiology, pre-intervention strategies, diagnosis and staging, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, surgery, watch and wait strategy, adjuvant chemotherapy, synchronous liver metastases, and emergency presentation of rectal cancer.

Dataset Information

The Congress Impact Factor: A proposal from board members of the World Society of Emergency Surgeons.it (WSES) and Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care (AcEMC).

Publications

The Congress Impact Factor: A proposal from board members of the World Society of Emergency Surgeons.it (WSES) and Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care (AcEMC).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets