- Email: [email protected]
Oral and maxillofacial surgery “presentation hot spots” in the United Kingdom over the last decade from the BAOMS annual meetings
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 51 (2013) 453–456
Short communication
Oral and maxillofacial surgery “presentation hot spots” in the United Kingdom over the last decade from the BAOMS annual meetings C.M.E. Avery a,∗ , N. Clifford a , J. Collier b , C.P. Neal a , P.A. Brennan c a b c
University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester LE1 5WW, United Kingdom Chelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London SW10 9NS, United Kingdom Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, United Kingdom
Accepted 29 October 2012 Available online 22 November 2012
Abstract The annual scientific meeting of the British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (BAOMS) is primarily a national meeting with a minor international contribution (3%). In the 10 years between 2002 and 2011 there were 1639 oral and poster presentations, and there was a significant increase in the total number of presentations (93–313, p < 0.001). There have also been substantial increases in the proportion of poster (36–80%, p = 0.005) and clinical presentations (88–94%, p = 0.02). The 10 most productive units contributed roughly half of all UK presentations, whilst the top 5 deaneries contributed 61%. The trends in output by the most productive units are noted and the total output of units and deaneries within the United Kingdom (UK) is shown on a colour map. The information will be of value to trainees when considering the merits of a training unit and region. © 2012 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Surgery; Presentations; Maxillofacial; Deanery; Department; Publications; Meeting
Introduction The presentation of work at the annual scientific meeting of the British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons is important for raising the profile of surgical trainees and surgical units as well as contributing to the development of our specialty.1,2 We have previously described the trends in presentations by differing grades of surgeons and units,3 and introduced the concept of a “league table” which may be of interest to trainees who wish to gain experience in presenting work and writing a paper. Surprisingly little information is available on this topic and the aim of this study was to analyse
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 0116 271 1598; fax: +44 0116 258 5205. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.M.E. Avery), [email protected] (N. Clifford), [email protected] (J. Collier), [email protected] (C.P. Neal), [email protected] (P.A. Brennan).
the number of presentations from over a decade at the BAOMS annual scientific meeting to create a map of “hot spots” in the United Kingdom (UK). Method We collated presentations from 10 consecutive BAOMS conferences from 2002 to 2011 using handbooks and published abstracts from the annual scientific meetings. Presentations were classified as either oral or poster, clinical or scientific, and by topic. Keynote and seminar presentations were excluded. Statistical analysis Trends in the total number and type of presentations were assessed using Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficient. Probabilities of less than 0.05 were considered significant.
0266-4356/$ – see front matter © 2012 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2012.10.019
454
C.M.E. Avery et al. / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 51 (2013) 453–456
Fig. 1. Map of “hot spots” in the United Kingdom for total number of presentations 2002–2011 [excluding military]; output by deanery and 10 most productive units.
Table 1 Number of presentations by the top 10 maxillofacial units. Absolute rank
Output ratio
Rank as ratio/no. of consultants
Unit and no. of consultantsa
No. of clinical presentations
No. of scientific presentations
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
12.0 6.6 8.2 11.7 7.1 20.0 3.6 7.8 4.9 5.3
2 7 4 3 6 1 10 5 9 8
BTL (14) GKT (15) Liverpool (12) UCLH (7) Birmingham (11) Leicester (3) Glasgow (14) Guildford (6) East Grinstead (9) Leeds (8)
160 95 84 68 75 59 47 47 44 36 715
7 4 14 14 3 1 3 0 0 6 52
167 99 98 82 78 60 50 47 44 42 767
BTL = Barts and the London; GKT = Guys’, King’s and St. Thomas’ Hospitals; UCLH = University College of London Hospitals. a Number of consultants estimated from BAOMS UK list of maxillofacial units.4
C.M.E. Avery et al. / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 51 (2013) 453–456
No. of presentations
35 30 BTL GKT Liverpool
25 20
UCLH Birmingham Leicester
15 10 5 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Fig. 2. Number of presentations/year (2002–2011) units 1–6 (BTL = Barts and the London; GKT = Guys’, King’s and St. Thomas’; UCLH = University College of London Hospitals).
Statistical analyses were done using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 14.0® (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
Results Trends in number and type of presentations There were 1639 oral and poster presentations. Most (n = 1544) came from UK maxillofacial units, 53 (3%) were from other specialties, and 42 (3%) were from overseas, which included the Republic of Ireland (n = 9), Egypt (n = 5), Australia (n = 3) France (n = 3), and 14 other countries. The total number of presentations has increased significantly from 93 in 2002 to 313 in 2011 (p < 0.001). From 2002 to 2011 there has also been a significant increase in the proportion of clinical, rather than scientific, presentations from 81 (88%) to 294 (94%) (p = 0.02), and an increase in the number of poster presentations from 33 (36%) to 249 (80%) (p = 0.005). “Hot spots” for UK presentations by deanery and unit There are 17 deanery training regions and 161 maxillofacial units in the UK.4 The 5 most productive deaneries contributed 61% (n = 944) of UK presentations (Fig. 1), and the 10 most productive units contributed half (n = 767) of UK presentations (Table 1). The trends in output over the period are shown in Fig. 2.
455
The productivity of a deanery usually reflected the output of one dominant unit. The London (29%), East Midlands (10%), West Midlands (7%), Kent, Surrey and Sussex (8%), and Scotland (7%) deaneries contributed 61% of all presentations. London is the largest deanery and there were substantial differences between individual areas. Several deaneries made only a minimal contribution (Fig. 1). The 10 most productive units contributed half of all presentations; most of these units are actually conglomerations of major hospitals. Barts and the London, and Birmingham groups have become increasingly dominant in most recent years whilst other well known units have sustained a relatively high level of output (Table 1, Fig. 2). The most efficient units, as measured by the ratio of output to number of consultants, were Leicester, and Barts and the London. The highest proportion of scientific presentations was from University College of London Hospitals (n = 14, 17%) and Liverpool (n = 14, 14%). In our previous study we identified trends in productivity by grade of author, and we noted that key individuals make a disproportionately large contribution to the meeting, with the 11 most productive individuals contributing nearly 20% of all presentations.3 It is important for a trainee to identify colleagues with the skills to actively support research, provide training in how to prepare and submit an abstract, and then make the difficult step to publication.1,2 The conversion rate to publication reported from 5 BAOMS meetings (2002–2006) was 24% and the 3 most successful units were Liverpool, Portsmouth, and Leicester.5 The most recently described hot spots in 2010–2011 for articles published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery were the Wessex, Mersey, and London deaneries.6 This type of information will be of increasing interest to a trainee when selecting a surgical training programme.
Conflict of interest statement None declared.
Ethical approval Not required.
Discussion The BAOMS annual scientific meeting is the principal meeting in the UK and is primarily a national event with minor contributions (3%) from a wide range of other countries. Although the study assessed the quantity, rather than quality of work presented, the meeting is oversubscribed. In 2009 the acceptance rate was 42%.2 Between 2002 and 2011 the total number of presentations increased by over 300%; 94% were primarily clinical in nature and 80% were posters (Table 1).
References 1. Walker TW, Cascarini L, Brennan PA. Educational paper: research in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;48:629–32. 2. Stewart SB, Oeppen RS, Cascarini L, et al. Educational article: what gets accepted for presentation? – a study of submitted abstracts for the 2009 BAOMS Conference. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;48:297–300. 3. Avery CM, Clifford N, Thakrar M, et al. Trends in presentations at BAOMS annual scientfic meetings. Face Mouth Jaw Surg 2011;1:38–47.
456
C.M.E. Avery et al. / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 51 (2013) 453–456
4. British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. List of oral and maxillofacial hospital units; May 2012. Available from URL: http://www.baoms.org.uk/file.aspx?id=425 5. Collier JM, Vig N, Hammond D. Publish or perish? A survey of abstracts accepted for meetings of the British Association of Oral and
Maxillofacial Surgeons, and subsequently published. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;48:540–3. 6. Hammond D, Goodson ML, Rosenbaum G, et al. Oral and maxillofacial surgery: “publication hot spots” in the United Kingdom. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;50:654–61.
British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 51 (2013) 453–456
Short communication
Oral and maxillofacial surgery “presentation hot spots” in the United Kingdom over the last decade from the BAOMS annual meetings C.M.E. Avery a,∗ , N. Clifford a , J. Collier b , C.P. Neal a , P.A. Brennan c a b c
University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester LE1 5WW, United Kingdom Chelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London SW10 9NS, United Kingdom Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, United Kingdom
Accepted 29 October 2012 Available online 22 November 2012
Abstract The annual scientific meeting of the British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (BAOMS) is primarily a national meeting with a minor international contribution (3%). In the 10 years between 2002 and 2011 there were 1639 oral and poster presentations, and there was a significant increase in the total number of presentations (93–313, p < 0.001). There have also been substantial increases in the proportion of poster (36–80%, p = 0.005) and clinical presentations (88–94%, p = 0.02). The 10 most productive units contributed roughly half of all UK presentations, whilst the top 5 deaneries contributed 61%. The trends in output by the most productive units are noted and the total output of units and deaneries within the United Kingdom (UK) is shown on a colour map. The information will be of value to trainees when considering the merits of a training unit and region. © 2012 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Surgery; Presentations; Maxillofacial; Deanery; Department; Publications; Meeting
Introduction The presentation of work at the annual scientific meeting of the British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons is important for raising the profile of surgical trainees and surgical units as well as contributing to the development of our specialty.1,2 We have previously described the trends in presentations by differing grades of surgeons and units,3 and introduced the concept of a “league table” which may be of interest to trainees who wish to gain experience in presenting work and writing a paper. Surprisingly little information is available on this topic and the aim of this study was to analyse
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 0116 271 1598; fax: +44 0116 258 5205. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.M.E. Avery), [email protected] (N. Clifford), [email protected] (J. Collier), [email protected] (C.P. Neal), [email protected] (P.A. Brennan).
the number of presentations from over a decade at the BAOMS annual scientific meeting to create a map of “hot spots” in the United Kingdom (UK). Method We collated presentations from 10 consecutive BAOMS conferences from 2002 to 2011 using handbooks and published abstracts from the annual scientific meetings. Presentations were classified as either oral or poster, clinical or scientific, and by topic. Keynote and seminar presentations were excluded. Statistical analysis Trends in the total number and type of presentations were assessed using Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficient. Probabilities of less than 0.05 were considered significant.
0266-4356/$ – see front matter © 2012 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2012.10.019
454
C.M.E. Avery et al. / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 51 (2013) 453–456
Fig. 1. Map of “hot spots” in the United Kingdom for total number of presentations 2002–2011 [excluding military]; output by deanery and 10 most productive units.
Table 1 Number of presentations by the top 10 maxillofacial units. Absolute rank
Output ratio
Rank as ratio/no. of consultants
Unit and no. of consultantsa
No. of clinical presentations
No. of scientific presentations
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
12.0 6.6 8.2 11.7 7.1 20.0 3.6 7.8 4.9 5.3
2 7 4 3 6 1 10 5 9 8
BTL (14) GKT (15) Liverpool (12) UCLH (7) Birmingham (11) Leicester (3) Glasgow (14) Guildford (6) East Grinstead (9) Leeds (8)
160 95 84 68 75 59 47 47 44 36 715
7 4 14 14 3 1 3 0 0 6 52
167 99 98 82 78 60 50 47 44 42 767
BTL = Barts and the London; GKT = Guys’, King’s and St. Thomas’ Hospitals; UCLH = University College of London Hospitals. a Number of consultants estimated from BAOMS UK list of maxillofacial units.4
C.M.E. Avery et al. / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 51 (2013) 453–456
No. of presentations
35 30 BTL GKT Liverpool
25 20
UCLH Birmingham Leicester
15 10 5 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Fig. 2. Number of presentations/year (2002–2011) units 1–6 (BTL = Barts and the London; GKT = Guys’, King’s and St. Thomas’; UCLH = University College of London Hospitals).
Statistical analyses were done using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 14.0® (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
Results Trends in number and type of presentations There were 1639 oral and poster presentations. Most (n = 1544) came from UK maxillofacial units, 53 (3%) were from other specialties, and 42 (3%) were from overseas, which included the Republic of Ireland (n = 9), Egypt (n = 5), Australia (n = 3) France (n = 3), and 14 other countries. The total number of presentations has increased significantly from 93 in 2002 to 313 in 2011 (p < 0.001). From 2002 to 2011 there has also been a significant increase in the proportion of clinical, rather than scientific, presentations from 81 (88%) to 294 (94%) (p = 0.02), and an increase in the number of poster presentations from 33 (36%) to 249 (80%) (p = 0.005). “Hot spots” for UK presentations by deanery and unit There are 17 deanery training regions and 161 maxillofacial units in the UK.4 The 5 most productive deaneries contributed 61% (n = 944) of UK presentations (Fig. 1), and the 10 most productive units contributed half (n = 767) of UK presentations (Table 1). The trends in output over the period are shown in Fig. 2.
455
The productivity of a deanery usually reflected the output of one dominant unit. The London (29%), East Midlands (10%), West Midlands (7%), Kent, Surrey and Sussex (8%), and Scotland (7%) deaneries contributed 61% of all presentations. London is the largest deanery and there were substantial differences between individual areas. Several deaneries made only a minimal contribution (Fig. 1). The 10 most productive units contributed half of all presentations; most of these units are actually conglomerations of major hospitals. Barts and the London, and Birmingham groups have become increasingly dominant in most recent years whilst other well known units have sustained a relatively high level of output (Table 1, Fig. 2). The most efficient units, as measured by the ratio of output to number of consultants, were Leicester, and Barts and the London. The highest proportion of scientific presentations was from University College of London Hospitals (n = 14, 17%) and Liverpool (n = 14, 14%). In our previous study we identified trends in productivity by grade of author, and we noted that key individuals make a disproportionately large contribution to the meeting, with the 11 most productive individuals contributing nearly 20% of all presentations.3 It is important for a trainee to identify colleagues with the skills to actively support research, provide training in how to prepare and submit an abstract, and then make the difficult step to publication.1,2 The conversion rate to publication reported from 5 BAOMS meetings (2002–2006) was 24% and the 3 most successful units were Liverpool, Portsmouth, and Leicester.5 The most recently described hot spots in 2010–2011 for articles published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery were the Wessex, Mersey, and London deaneries.6 This type of information will be of increasing interest to a trainee when selecting a surgical training programme.
Conflict of interest statement None declared.
Ethical approval Not required.
Discussion The BAOMS annual scientific meeting is the principal meeting in the UK and is primarily a national event with minor contributions (3%) from a wide range of other countries. Although the study assessed the quantity, rather than quality of work presented, the meeting is oversubscribed. In 2009 the acceptance rate was 42%.2 Between 2002 and 2011 the total number of presentations increased by over 300%; 94% were primarily clinical in nature and 80% were posters (Table 1).
References 1. Walker TW, Cascarini L, Brennan PA. Educational paper: research in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;48:629–32. 2. Stewart SB, Oeppen RS, Cascarini L, et al. Educational article: what gets accepted for presentation? – a study of submitted abstracts for the 2009 BAOMS Conference. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;48:297–300. 3. Avery CM, Clifford N, Thakrar M, et al. Trends in presentations at BAOMS annual scientfic meetings. Face Mouth Jaw Surg 2011;1:38–47.
456
C.M.E. Avery et al. / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 51 (2013) 453–456
4. British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. List of oral and maxillofacial hospital units; May 2012. Available from URL: http://www.baoms.org.uk/file.aspx?id=425 5. Collier JM, Vig N, Hammond D. Publish or perish? A survey of abstracts accepted for meetings of the British Association of Oral and
Maxillofacial Surgeons, and subsequently published. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;48:540–3. 6. Hammond D, Goodson ML, Rosenbaum G, et al. Oral and maxillofacial surgery: “publication hot spots” in the United Kingdom. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;50:654–61.