Patel Manish V, Pradhan Ben B, Meals Roy A
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Spine (Phila Pa 1986). 2003 Apr 1;28(7):632-36.
Study Design. A retrospective study was used to review fellowship applications over 3 years. Objectives. To assess the prevalence of research misrepresentation in orthopedic fellowship applications, and to compare such activity between subspecialties (e.g. spine, sports, hand). Summary of Background Data. Competition for orthopedic surgery fellowships is intense. The applicant pool includes orthopedic, plastic, and general surgeons, as well as neurosurgeons. Residency and fellowship training programs in other disciplines have documented shocking levels of misrepresentation in the curriculum vitae of prospective applicants. However, no study has looked at orthopedic residents applying for subspecialty fellowship programs. Methods. A retrospective analysis investigated 280 applications for fellowship positions in the department of orthopedic surgery at the authors' academic institution from 1996 to 1998 inclusively. To allow for press and publication delays, a minimum 24-month follow-up period was instituted. The listings of applicants' research publications were analyzed for evidence of misrepresentation through an exhaustive literature search. Only the most obvious confirmable discrepancies were labeled as misrepresentations. The results then were compared with those found in studies conducted in other fields: gastroenterology fellowship, emergency medicine residency, pediatric residency, dermatology residency, orthopedic residency, and medical faculty applications. Results. Among 280 (54%) applicants for orthopedic surgery candidates, 151 claimed journal publications. It was found that 16 (10.6%) of these 151 applicants had misrepresented their citations. This rate was highest in spine fellowship applicants (20%). However, considering the numbers available, this was not significantly different among the various subspecialty fellowship applicants (P>0.1). In addition, various demographic data did not correlate with the rate of misrepresentation (P>0.1). These results are comparable with those reported in other medical fields (P>0.1). Conclusions. Misrepresentation occurs in orthopedic fellowship applications at a rate comparable with that observed in other fields. This rate is not different among the various subspecialties in orthopedics. Policies that may lessen the incidence of falsification on curriculum vitae should be instituted in an attempt to curb such activity.
研究设计。采用回顾性研究方法对3年期间的专科医师培训申请进行审查。目的。评估骨科专科医师培训申请中研究造假的发生率，并比较各亚专业（如脊柱、运动、手部）之间的此类情况。背景资料总结。骨科手术专科医师培训的竞争非常激烈。申请人包括骨科、整形外科和普通外科医生，以及神经外科医生。其他学科的住院医师培训和专科医师培训项目已经记录了准申请人简历中令人震惊的造假程度。然而，尚无研究关注申请亚专业专科医师培训项目的骨科住院医师。方法。回顾性分析调查了作者所在学术机构1996年至1998年期间骨科手术科室280份专科医师培训职位申请。为考虑新闻报道和出版延迟因素，设定了至少24个月的随访期。通过详尽的文献检索分析申请人研究出版物列表，以寻找造假证据。仅将最明显可证实的差异标记为造假。然后将结果与其他领域的研究结果进行比较：胃肠病学专科医师培训、急诊医学住院医师培训、儿科住院医师培训、皮肤科住院医师培训、骨科住院医师培训以及医学教员申请。结果。在280名（54%）骨科手术候选人申请人中，151人声称有期刊出版物。发现这151名申请人中有16人（10.6%）在引用方面造假。该比例在脊柱专科医师培训申请人中最高（20%）。然而，考虑到可用人数，各亚专业专科医师培训申请人之间差异无统计学意义（P>0.1）。此外，各种人口统计学数据与造假率无关（P>0.1）。这些结果与其他医学领域报道的结果相当（P>0.1）。结论。骨科专科医师培训申请中造假现象的发生率与其他领域相当。骨科各亚专业之间这一发生率无差异。应制定可能减少简历造假发生率的政策，以试图遏制此类行为。
