↓ Skip to main content

Are Recently Trained Tumor Fellows Performing Less Tumor Surgery? An Analysis of 10 Years of the ABOS Part II Database

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Are Recently Trained Tumor Fellows Performing Less Tumor Surgery? An Analysis of 10 Years of the ABOS Part II Database
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-5023-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kyle R. Duchman, Benjamin J. Miller

Abstract

The majority of orthopaedic trainees pursue additional subspecialty training at the conclusion of residency. Although national trends indicate that fellowship-trained surgeons are more frequently performing cases in their defined subspecialties, this may not be the case for recently trained tumor fellows. Prior work has established that low tumor case volume is a significant stressor for recently trained tumor fellows. Given the relative rarity of musculoskeletal tumors, it is important for prospective trainees to have clear expectations for the proportion of specialty-specific procedures early during their careers. In addition, knowledge of anticipated specialty case volume is important to optimize fellowship training and to provide guidance for meeting the public health requirements for orthopaedic oncology. We wished to determine (1) the number of examinees who self-reported tumor fellowship training during the last decade; (2) how many tumor fellowship-educated surgeons did an additional fellowship(s) in other subspecialties; (3) the number and proportion of tumor, trauma, adult reconstruction, and other procedures performed by tumor-trained fellows; and (4) changes in the proportion of procedures performed by tumor-trained fellows during the 10-year period of the study. The American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Part II database was used to identify examinees who reported tumor fellowship training between 2004 and 2013. All submitted procedures were broadly categorized as "tumor," "trauma," "adult reconstruction," or "other." Annual procedure volumes were calculated and univariate analysis allowed comparison of categorized procedures during the duration of the study. The median annual number of candidates reporting tumor fellowship training was 12.5 (range, 7-16). There were 28 of 118 (24%) candidates who reported additional fellowship training. A total of 14,718 procedures were performed by all candidates with tumor fellowship training during the 10-year period of the study, 42% of which were categorized as tumor procedures. Overall, only 36% of candidates reported tumor procedures making up greater than 50% of their case volume. Between 2004 to 2005 and 2012 to 2013, the proportion of tumor procedures decreased (45% versus 36%; p < 0.001), whereas the number of adult reconstruction procedures increased (9% versus 19%; p < 0.001). Between 2004 and 2013, only one-third of recently trained tumor fellows had practices with tumor procedures accounting for greater than 50% of their total case volume. Furthermore, the proportion of tumor cases performed by recently trained tumor fellows decreased during the same time. The proportion of specialty-specific procedures is lower in orthopaedic oncology than other orthopaedic subspecialties, which is important information for current trainees interested in orthopaedic oncology fellowship training and for orthopaedic oncology educators. The findings in this study should serve as an initial platform for further discussion regarding the optimal number of fellowship-trained orthopaedic oncologists required to meet regional and national needs for an accessible and proficient work force.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 22%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 70%
Unspecified 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Unknown 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2018.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#5,962
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,312
of 371,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#74
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 371,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.