- Email: [email protected]
MP69-05 TWITTER MENTIONS AND ACADEMIC CITATIONS IN UROLOGY LITERATURE
THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGYâ
Vol. 197, No. 4S, Supplement, Monday, May 15, 2017
MP69-03
MP69-04
USE OF PELVIC FLOOR REHABILITATION IN A STATEWIDE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT COLLABORATIVE: PATIENT AND COST CHARACTERISTICS
IDENTIFICATION OF MODIFIABLE RISK FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH PATIENT-REPORTED ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION TO ENHANCE PATIENT HEALTH COUNSELING AND SEXUAL QUALITY OF LIFE
Deborah R. Kaye*, John Syrjamaki, Chad Ellimootil, M Hugh Solomon, Take Kim, Susan Linsell, Khurshid R. Ghani, David C. Miller, James E. Montie, James M. Dupree, for the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, Ann Arbor, MI INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials have suggested that pelvic floor rehab (PFR) can improve early urinary control following radical prostatectomy. However, the details surrounding its use in clinical practice and its contribution to cost and value are not well understood. In this context, we examined the use of PFR in a diverse statewide quality improvement collaborative, including patient characteristics, implementation patterns, and costs. METHODS: Using registry data from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative and claims data from Michigan Value Collaborative, we identified all men who underwent a laparoscopic radical prostatectomy from 04/2014 through 11/2015 with insurance from Medicare or a large commercial payer. All men reported pre-operative urinary function using the STAR questionnaire with scores ranging from 0 (worst) to 21 (best). We compared patient demographics, cancer characteristics, pre-operative urinary function, and 90-day total episode costs of patients who did and did not receive PFR. RESULTS: 142 men met our inclusion criteria, of whom 53 (37%) received pelvic floor rehab. There were no differences in patient or cancer characteristics among patients who did and did not receive PFR. Patients initiated PFR an average of 34 days after discharge (range 15-83 days). Mean baseline urinary function scores were worse for PFR patients (17.8 vs 19.3, p¼0.01). Ninety-day episode costs were similar in the two cohorts, with PFR contributing an average of $422, or 3% of total episode costs. CONCLUSIONS: In a statewide collaborative, PFR is used in the minority of cases, but its use appears to be concentrated among patients with worse baseline urinary function. Incremental costs from PFR are modest, accounting for 3% of 90-day episode costs. In the era of value-based care, decisions about further expanding this therapy will depend on studying its comparative impact on post-operative patient reported outcomes in large groups of non-clinical trial patients.
e927
Jaime A. Cavallo*, Jared S. Winoker, Kyle A. Blum, New York, NY; Wendy L. Poage, E. David Crawford, Aurora, CO; Steven A. Kaplan, Nelson N. Stone, New York, NY INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Many lifestyle factors and comorbidities that may contribute to the development of erectile dysfunction (ED) are potentially modifiable. Therefore, the ability to predict ED severity based on associated comorbidities would be of value in counseling patients about early lifestyle modifications to prevent future dysfunction. We sought to identify patient risk factors that predict worse patient-reported Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) scores. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 25,388 men who participated in a nationwide men’s health screening program in 2003, 2011, and 2012. All men completed a questionnaire, which included exercise frequency, fat content of diet, urinary symptoms, sexual function, medical comorbidities, and body mass index (BMI). Testosterone (T) was available in 10,130. SHIM scores were stratified by severity: none (21-25), mild (17-21), moderate (8-16), or severe (1-7). Associations between SHIM and patient factors were assessed by Chisquared test and ANOVA. Statistically significant variables from univariate analyses (p<.05) were included in a multivariable linear regression model for patient-reported SHIM score. RESULTS: Median age was 61.2 years (IQR 54-68) with racial distribution of 75.6% Caucasian, 17.1% African American, 5.2% Hispanic, and 2.0% Asian. On linear regression, age (HR .28 95% CI .31.24; p<.0001), BMI (HR .08 95% CI .13-.04, p¼.001), prostatic enlargement (HR 1.87 95% CI 2.58-1.16; p<.0001), heart disease (HR 1.34 95% CI 2.26-.428; p¼.004), diabetes (HR 1.99 95% CI 2.78-1.20, p¼.0001), and total AUA symptom score (HR .12 95% CI .16-.07, p<.0001) were associated with a lower SHIM score. Factors that did not reach statistical significance were race (p¼.36), history of heart attack (p¼.09), exercise level (p¼.07), fat content of diet (p¼.74), and testosterone level (p¼.27). CONCLUSIONS: There are several health issues and lifestyle behaviors that predict the development and worsening of ED. Increased awareness of such modifiable factors may be useful in counseling patients to improve overall health and prevent potentially irreversible damage on erectile function. Likewise, worse SHIM scores should alert the physician to investigate comorbidities that may be inadequately managed.
Source of Funding: none
MP69-05 TWITTER MENTIONS AND ACADEMIC CITATIONS IN UROLOGY LITERATURE Solomon Hayon*, Ian Stormont, Meagan Dunne, Michael Naslund, Mohummad Minhaj Siddiqui, Baltimore, MD
Source of Funding: Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Social media use has dramatically increased in academic medicine with over 70% of journals now using Twitter accounts. This calls into question if there is a measurable association between academic impact and Twitter use. We
THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGYâ
e928
sought to quantify the relationship between the number of Twitter mentions and the number of academic citations a urology publication receives. METHODS: 213 papers from 7 prominent urology journals were examined 18 months after publication from December 2014-January 2015. Articles were evaluated with 2 citation based “bibliometrics”(Scopus, Google Scholar) and 1 social media based metric (Altmetric). Altmetric software allowed for individual tweets regarding an article to be examined. Scores and Twitter mentions were compared using one way ANOVA and bivariate fit analysis. RESULTS: 73% of articles had at least 1 twitter mention. These articles were found to have 2.0 fold more Scopus citations (p < 0.01), 2.1 fold more Google Scholar citations (p < 0.01), and 27.8 fold higher Altmetric scores (p < 0.001) compared to articles with no Twitter mentions. There was a positive correlation between the number of Twitter mentions and the number of citations on Scopus (R¼ 0.328, p<0.01) and Google Scholar (R¼0.348, p<0.01). This relationship remained significant when controlling for journal impact factor. 9% of authors self-tweeted their own publications. Authors self-tweeting articles was associated with an increased number of citations, with a 6.5 and 4.6 mean citation increase in Google Scholar and Scopus scores (p ¼ 0.02 and p < 0.01) compared to non-self-tweeted articles. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of urology publications are being shared on Twitter. The number of citations a urologic publication receives is associated with the number of mentions it has on Twitter. Authors self-tweeting articles may be a factor that increases paper visibility and academic impact.
Vol. 197, No. 4S, Supplement, Monday, May 15, 2017
categorical variables while nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 215 articles were analyzed from Journal of Urology, European Urology, and British Journal of Urology. The median number of authors per article was 8 (IQR 6-11) and median number of references was 27 (IQR 20-30). Articles in European Urology generally had more authors than Journal of Urology or British Journal of Urology (median ¼ 12, 7, and 7, respectively, p<0.001). Overall, 180 articles (84%) had at least one self-cited reference. The median number of references with at least one selfcitation was 4 (IQR 1-7), corresponding to an overall self-citation rate of 14% (IQR 5-25). Articles in European Urology were significantly more likely than those in Journal of Urology (98% vs. 79%, p<0.001) or British Journal of Urology (98% vs. 81%, p<0.001) to include at least one self-citation. This translated to a significantly higher rate of self-citation in European Urology compared to both Journal of Urology and British Journal of Urology that had equal rates (median 25% vs. 12%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that author self-citation in the urology literature is common, seen in greater than 80% of articles reviewed. Our study is the first to show the practice of self-citation varies significantly between journals and was more common by authors published in European Urology versus Journal of Urology and British Journal of Urology. The effect of self-citation on an individual’s h-index, however, remains to be elucidated and warrants further study. Source of Funding: None
MP69-07 HASHTAG PEER-REVIEW: DOES EARLY SOCIAL MEDIA SUCCESS CORRELATE WITH CONVENTIONAL METRICS OF PUBLICATION IMPACT? Kevin Nguyen, Cary Gross, New Haven, CT; Matthew Cooperberg, San Francisco, CA; Matthew Katz, Lowell, MA; Adam Hittelman, Jamil Syed, Peter Schulam, Michael Leapman*, New Haven, CT
Source of Funding: None
MP69-06 AUTHOR SELF-CITATION IN THE UROLOGY LITERATURE Katherine Carlisle*, Joseph Sterbis, Phuong Do, Leah McMann, Honolulu, HI INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The h-index, introduced by Hirsch in 2005, quantifies an individual’s contribution to the literature using the author’s total number of publications and how frequently those publications have been cited. Author self-citation is commonly used when expanding on previous research; however, there is concern that self-citation practices may be used to artificially inflate one’s h-index. The objective of our study was to determine the frequency and patterns of author self-citation in the urology literature. METHODS: A retrospective review of bibliographic references was performed of consecutive publications in three high-impact urology journals published between October and December 2015. Data included number of authors, total references, author self-citations, selfcited references, journal self-citations, urology topic, and country of origin. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used to evaluate
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Social media is increasingly utilized as a means to disseminate information, including scientific study. In contrast to the conventional academic peer-review process, social media may serve as an efficient vehicle to both vet and widely broadcast research. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated whether Twitter activity at a national urology meeting mirrors subsequent journal impact factor (IF), a traditional measure of academic impact. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed historical Twitter data obtained through the Keyhole archiving platform using the hashtag “#aua15” between May 1 and June 1, 2015 reflecting the widely utilized hashtag of the 2015 American Urological Association (AUA) meeting. We analyzed all tweets receiving ¼ 4 likes/retweets (RT). Among tweets reporting on newly presented studies with discernable attribution, we evaluated subsequent publication status within 18 months, including IF. Published studies with multiple tweets were grouped, and RTs were summed. We assessed the relationship between social media reception (likes/RT) and subsequent journal IF using Pearson’s correlation. RESULTS: A total of 15,303 posts were associated with “#aua15” drawing from 2,015 users, reaching 2,263,438 unique twitter users, and culminated in 27,327,075 impressions (number of times users have seen posts containing “#aua15”). 451 of the most promoted tweets were analyzed, including 74 related to discernable data with author attribution. The most common categories of tweets included references to data or studies without discrete author or study attribution (18.8%), generalized comments (17.5%), and meeting-related announcements (16.6%). At 18 months following the AUA, 44 studies were identifiable on PubMed (59%). Among published studies there was a modest, positive correlation between number of likes/RT and IF (r¼0.59).
Vol. 197, No. 4S, Supplement, Monday, May 15, 2017
MP69-03
MP69-04
USE OF PELVIC FLOOR REHABILITATION IN A STATEWIDE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT COLLABORATIVE: PATIENT AND COST CHARACTERISTICS
IDENTIFICATION OF MODIFIABLE RISK FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH PATIENT-REPORTED ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION TO ENHANCE PATIENT HEALTH COUNSELING AND SEXUAL QUALITY OF LIFE
Deborah R. Kaye*, John Syrjamaki, Chad Ellimootil, M Hugh Solomon, Take Kim, Susan Linsell, Khurshid R. Ghani, David C. Miller, James E. Montie, James M. Dupree, for the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, Ann Arbor, MI INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials have suggested that pelvic floor rehab (PFR) can improve early urinary control following radical prostatectomy. However, the details surrounding its use in clinical practice and its contribution to cost and value are not well understood. In this context, we examined the use of PFR in a diverse statewide quality improvement collaborative, including patient characteristics, implementation patterns, and costs. METHODS: Using registry data from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative and claims data from Michigan Value Collaborative, we identified all men who underwent a laparoscopic radical prostatectomy from 04/2014 through 11/2015 with insurance from Medicare or a large commercial payer. All men reported pre-operative urinary function using the STAR questionnaire with scores ranging from 0 (worst) to 21 (best). We compared patient demographics, cancer characteristics, pre-operative urinary function, and 90-day total episode costs of patients who did and did not receive PFR. RESULTS: 142 men met our inclusion criteria, of whom 53 (37%) received pelvic floor rehab. There were no differences in patient or cancer characteristics among patients who did and did not receive PFR. Patients initiated PFR an average of 34 days after discharge (range 15-83 days). Mean baseline urinary function scores were worse for PFR patients (17.8 vs 19.3, p¼0.01). Ninety-day episode costs were similar in the two cohorts, with PFR contributing an average of $422, or 3% of total episode costs. CONCLUSIONS: In a statewide collaborative, PFR is used in the minority of cases, but its use appears to be concentrated among patients with worse baseline urinary function. Incremental costs from PFR are modest, accounting for 3% of 90-day episode costs. In the era of value-based care, decisions about further expanding this therapy will depend on studying its comparative impact on post-operative patient reported outcomes in large groups of non-clinical trial patients.
e927
Jaime A. Cavallo*, Jared S. Winoker, Kyle A. Blum, New York, NY; Wendy L. Poage, E. David Crawford, Aurora, CO; Steven A. Kaplan, Nelson N. Stone, New York, NY INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Many lifestyle factors and comorbidities that may contribute to the development of erectile dysfunction (ED) are potentially modifiable. Therefore, the ability to predict ED severity based on associated comorbidities would be of value in counseling patients about early lifestyle modifications to prevent future dysfunction. We sought to identify patient risk factors that predict worse patient-reported Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) scores. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 25,388 men who participated in a nationwide men’s health screening program in 2003, 2011, and 2012. All men completed a questionnaire, which included exercise frequency, fat content of diet, urinary symptoms, sexual function, medical comorbidities, and body mass index (BMI). Testosterone (T) was available in 10,130. SHIM scores were stratified by severity: none (21-25), mild (17-21), moderate (8-16), or severe (1-7). Associations between SHIM and patient factors were assessed by Chisquared test and ANOVA. Statistically significant variables from univariate analyses (p<.05) were included in a multivariable linear regression model for patient-reported SHIM score. RESULTS: Median age was 61.2 years (IQR 54-68) with racial distribution of 75.6% Caucasian, 17.1% African American, 5.2% Hispanic, and 2.0% Asian. On linear regression, age (HR .28 95% CI .31.24; p<.0001), BMI (HR .08 95% CI .13-.04, p¼.001), prostatic enlargement (HR 1.87 95% CI 2.58-1.16; p<.0001), heart disease (HR 1.34 95% CI 2.26-.428; p¼.004), diabetes (HR 1.99 95% CI 2.78-1.20, p¼.0001), and total AUA symptom score (HR .12 95% CI .16-.07, p<.0001) were associated with a lower SHIM score. Factors that did not reach statistical significance were race (p¼.36), history of heart attack (p¼.09), exercise level (p¼.07), fat content of diet (p¼.74), and testosterone level (p¼.27). CONCLUSIONS: There are several health issues and lifestyle behaviors that predict the development and worsening of ED. Increased awareness of such modifiable factors may be useful in counseling patients to improve overall health and prevent potentially irreversible damage on erectile function. Likewise, worse SHIM scores should alert the physician to investigate comorbidities that may be inadequately managed.
Source of Funding: none
MP69-05 TWITTER MENTIONS AND ACADEMIC CITATIONS IN UROLOGY LITERATURE Solomon Hayon*, Ian Stormont, Meagan Dunne, Michael Naslund, Mohummad Minhaj Siddiqui, Baltimore, MD
Source of Funding: Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Social media use has dramatically increased in academic medicine with over 70% of journals now using Twitter accounts. This calls into question if there is a measurable association between academic impact and Twitter use. We
THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGYâ
e928
sought to quantify the relationship between the number of Twitter mentions and the number of academic citations a urology publication receives. METHODS: 213 papers from 7 prominent urology journals were examined 18 months after publication from December 2014-January 2015. Articles were evaluated with 2 citation based “bibliometrics”(Scopus, Google Scholar) and 1 social media based metric (Altmetric). Altmetric software allowed for individual tweets regarding an article to be examined. Scores and Twitter mentions were compared using one way ANOVA and bivariate fit analysis. RESULTS: 73% of articles had at least 1 twitter mention. These articles were found to have 2.0 fold more Scopus citations (p < 0.01), 2.1 fold more Google Scholar citations (p < 0.01), and 27.8 fold higher Altmetric scores (p < 0.001) compared to articles with no Twitter mentions. There was a positive correlation between the number of Twitter mentions and the number of citations on Scopus (R¼ 0.328, p<0.01) and Google Scholar (R¼0.348, p<0.01). This relationship remained significant when controlling for journal impact factor. 9% of authors self-tweeted their own publications. Authors self-tweeting articles was associated with an increased number of citations, with a 6.5 and 4.6 mean citation increase in Google Scholar and Scopus scores (p ¼ 0.02 and p < 0.01) compared to non-self-tweeted articles. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of urology publications are being shared on Twitter. The number of citations a urologic publication receives is associated with the number of mentions it has on Twitter. Authors self-tweeting articles may be a factor that increases paper visibility and academic impact.
Vol. 197, No. 4S, Supplement, Monday, May 15, 2017
categorical variables while nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 215 articles were analyzed from Journal of Urology, European Urology, and British Journal of Urology. The median number of authors per article was 8 (IQR 6-11) and median number of references was 27 (IQR 20-30). Articles in European Urology generally had more authors than Journal of Urology or British Journal of Urology (median ¼ 12, 7, and 7, respectively, p<0.001). Overall, 180 articles (84%) had at least one self-cited reference. The median number of references with at least one selfcitation was 4 (IQR 1-7), corresponding to an overall self-citation rate of 14% (IQR 5-25). Articles in European Urology were significantly more likely than those in Journal of Urology (98% vs. 79%, p<0.001) or British Journal of Urology (98% vs. 81%, p<0.001) to include at least one self-citation. This translated to a significantly higher rate of self-citation in European Urology compared to both Journal of Urology and British Journal of Urology that had equal rates (median 25% vs. 12%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that author self-citation in the urology literature is common, seen in greater than 80% of articles reviewed. Our study is the first to show the practice of self-citation varies significantly between journals and was more common by authors published in European Urology versus Journal of Urology and British Journal of Urology. The effect of self-citation on an individual’s h-index, however, remains to be elucidated and warrants further study. Source of Funding: None
MP69-07 HASHTAG PEER-REVIEW: DOES EARLY SOCIAL MEDIA SUCCESS CORRELATE WITH CONVENTIONAL METRICS OF PUBLICATION IMPACT? Kevin Nguyen, Cary Gross, New Haven, CT; Matthew Cooperberg, San Francisco, CA; Matthew Katz, Lowell, MA; Adam Hittelman, Jamil Syed, Peter Schulam, Michael Leapman*, New Haven, CT
Source of Funding: None
MP69-06 AUTHOR SELF-CITATION IN THE UROLOGY LITERATURE Katherine Carlisle*, Joseph Sterbis, Phuong Do, Leah McMann, Honolulu, HI INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The h-index, introduced by Hirsch in 2005, quantifies an individual’s contribution to the literature using the author’s total number of publications and how frequently those publications have been cited. Author self-citation is commonly used when expanding on previous research; however, there is concern that self-citation practices may be used to artificially inflate one’s h-index. The objective of our study was to determine the frequency and patterns of author self-citation in the urology literature. METHODS: A retrospective review of bibliographic references was performed of consecutive publications in three high-impact urology journals published between October and December 2015. Data included number of authors, total references, author self-citations, selfcited references, journal self-citations, urology topic, and country of origin. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used to evaluate
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Social media is increasingly utilized as a means to disseminate information, including scientific study. In contrast to the conventional academic peer-review process, social media may serve as an efficient vehicle to both vet and widely broadcast research. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated whether Twitter activity at a national urology meeting mirrors subsequent journal impact factor (IF), a traditional measure of academic impact. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed historical Twitter data obtained through the Keyhole archiving platform using the hashtag “#aua15” between May 1 and June 1, 2015 reflecting the widely utilized hashtag of the 2015 American Urological Association (AUA) meeting. We analyzed all tweets receiving ¼ 4 likes/retweets (RT). Among tweets reporting on newly presented studies with discernable attribution, we evaluated subsequent publication status within 18 months, including IF. Published studies with multiple tweets were grouped, and RTs were summed. We assessed the relationship between social media reception (likes/RT) and subsequent journal IF using Pearson’s correlation. RESULTS: A total of 15,303 posts were associated with “#aua15” drawing from 2,015 users, reaching 2,263,438 unique twitter users, and culminated in 27,327,075 impressions (number of times users have seen posts containing “#aua15”). 451 of the most promoted tweets were analyzed, including 74 related to discernable data with author attribution. The most common categories of tweets included references to data or studies without discrete author or study attribution (18.8%), generalized comments (17.5%), and meeting-related announcements (16.6%). At 18 months following the AUA, 44 studies were identifiable on PubMed (59%). Among published studies there was a modest, positive correlation between number of likes/RT and IF (r¼0.59).