Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Faculty Consultant, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
Aesthet Surg J. 2021 Nov 12;41(12):1473-1480. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjaa335.
Recent data show that aesthetic surgery research is lagging compared with reconstructive surgery: research funding and institutional disparities within aesthetic surgery are potential factors in this trend.
The authors sought to determine if disparities exist in aesthetic surgery research based on funding sources or practice settings.
The authors reviewed Aesthetic Surgery Journal articles from 2009 to 2019. Chi-square, t test, bivariate, and multivariate regression analyses were employed to evaluate research trends.
A total of 2262 publications were identified, with 318 funded articles meeting inclusion criteria. The majority of studies (294, 92%) received external funding, with 281 (88%) being supported solely by external funds. Externally funded studies were financed by private industry (194, 66%), foundations/societies (53, 18%), government grants (23, 8%), or a combination of agencies (24, 8%). The majority of funded studies were at academic institutions (266, 84%), followed by private practice (46, 14%) and private industry (6, 2%). Analysis of annual publications revealed a rising percentage of academic-based research, which correlated with decreasing research from private practice (r = -0.95, r2 = 0.89, P < 0.001). Compared with academic institutions, private practice relied more heavily on industry funding (55% vs 87%, respectively, P = 0.001), exhibiting lower rates of foundational/societal (20% vs 2%), governmental (9% vs 0%), combined (8% vs 7%), and internal department funding (8% vs 4%). Article citations and level of evidence were unaffected by funding source, agency, or practice setting.
Lack of diversity in research funding among private practice surgeons may explain the reported discrepancies that currently exist between aesthetic and reconstructive surgery research.
最近的数据表明,与重建外科相比,美容外科研究滞后:研究资金和美容外科机构内的差异是这种趋势的潜在因素。
作者试图确定基于资金来源或实践环境,美容外科研究中是否存在差异。
作者回顾了 2009 年至 2019 年的《美容外科学杂志》文章。采用卡方检验、t 检验、双变量和多变量回归分析评估研究趋势。
共确定了 2262 篇出版物,其中 318 篇符合纳入标准的有资金支持的文章。大多数研究(294 篇,92%)获得了外部资金支持,其中 281 篇(88%)仅由外部资金支持。外部资助的研究由私营企业(194 篇,66%)、基金会/学会(53 篇,18%)、政府赠款(23 篇,8%)或多家机构(24 篇,8%)资助。大多数有资金支持的研究在学术机构进行(266 篇,84%),其次是私人诊所(46 篇,14%)和私营企业(6 篇,2%)。对年度出版物的分析显示,基于学术的研究比例呈上升趋势,这与私人诊所的研究减少相关(r=-0.95,r2=0.89,P<0.001)。与学术机构相比,私人诊所更依赖于行业资金(分别为 55%和 87%,P=0.001),其基础/社会(20%对 2%)、政府(9%对 0%)、联合(8%对 7%)和内部部门资金(8%对 4%)的比例较低。资金来源、机构或实践环境对文章引用率和证据水平没有影响。
私人执业外科医生研究资金来源缺乏多样性可能解释了目前美容外科和重建外科研究之间存在的差异。