Exploring the Scientific Conversation Regarding Live Tissue Training in Trauma Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
C.S. Swain , H.M.L. Cohen , G. Helgesson , R.F. Rickard , K. Karlgren
{"title":"Exploring the Scientific Conversation Regarding Live Tissue Training in Trauma Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis","authors":"C.S. Swain ,&nbsp;H.M.L. Cohen ,&nbsp;G. Helgesson ,&nbsp;R.F. Rickard ,&nbsp;K. Karlgren","doi":"10.1016/j.jsurg.2024.09.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>INTRODUCTION</h3><div>Live tissue training (LTT), use of a living anaesthetized animal to practice surgical skills, is a continuing practice, despite controversy and ethical concern. The scientific literature appears polarized in terms of supporting or refuting the practice. This bibliometric analysis of the literature maps and explores the academic conversation regarding LTT including potential influences associated with authorship.</div></div><div><h3>METHOD</h3><div>Literature identified via the process conducted during a previously published systematic review was used for analysis. 84 literature sources were included. Bibliometric data were manually extracted for analysis, and visually mapped.</div></div><div><h3>RESULTS</h3><div>The scientific conversation about LTT use in trauma is centered on surgery, trauma and emergency medicine specialties, published in clinical journals, with significant influence noted from military authors and organizations. Few authors published work in simulation or education-based journals. Publications are considered to be generally supportive of, or ambivalent to, the use of LTT; those with notable objections to LTT tended to be affiliated to animal activist organizations.</div></div><div><h3>CONCLUSION</h3><div>There is academic conversation apparent within the literature, in the form of citations, although this is used to affirm or rebuke a given perspective, rather than engage with, or learn from, the content. There is potential benefit to increased interactivity between researchers. The conversation could also be informed by authors broadening the outlook to wider medical educational literature and other disciplines, rather than focusing on application to clinical training, to improve trauma education for all, regardless of modality.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50033,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Surgical Education","volume":"81 12","pages":"Article 103295"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Surgical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1931720424004331","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Live tissue training (LTT), use of a living anaesthetized animal to practice surgical skills, is a continuing practice, despite controversy and ethical concern. The scientific literature appears polarized in terms of supporting or refuting the practice. This bibliometric analysis of the literature maps and explores the academic conversation regarding LTT including potential influences associated with authorship.

METHOD

Literature identified via the process conducted during a previously published systematic review was used for analysis. 84 literature sources were included. Bibliometric data were manually extracted for analysis, and visually mapped.

RESULTS

The scientific conversation about LTT use in trauma is centered on surgery, trauma and emergency medicine specialties, published in clinical journals, with significant influence noted from military authors and organizations. Few authors published work in simulation or education-based journals. Publications are considered to be generally supportive of, or ambivalent to, the use of LTT; those with notable objections to LTT tended to be affiliated to animal activist organizations.

CONCLUSION

There is academic conversation apparent within the literature, in the form of citations, although this is used to affirm or rebuke a given perspective, rather than engage with, or learn from, the content. There is potential benefit to increased interactivity between researchers. The conversation could also be informed by authors broadening the outlook to wider medical educational literature and other disciplines, rather than focusing on application to clinical training, to improve trauma education for all, regardless of modality.
探索有关创伤外科活体组织训练的科学对话:文献计量分析。
导言:活体组织训练(LTT)是指使用活体麻醉动物练习外科手术技能,尽管存在争议和伦理问题,但这种做法仍在继续。科学文献在支持或反驳这种做法方面出现了两极分化。这篇文献计量分析描绘并探讨了有关 LTT 的学术对话,包括与作者身份相关的潜在影响因素:方法:通过对之前发表的系统性综述过程中确定的文献进行分析。共纳入 84 篇文献。人工提取文献计量数据进行分析,并绘制视觉地图:关于在创伤中使用 LTT 的科学讨论主要集中在外科、创伤和急诊医学专业,发表在临床期刊上,并受到军事作者和组织的重要影响。很少有作者在模拟或教育类杂志上发表文章。发表的文章被认为普遍支持或反对使用LTT;明显反对LTT的作者往往隶属于动物激进组织:结论:文献中以引用的形式出现了明显的学术对话,尽管这种对话是用来肯定或反驳某一观点,而不是参与或从内容中学习。加强研究人员之间的互动可能会带来益处。作者还可以将视野扩大到更广泛的医学教育文献和其他学科,而不是将重点放在临床培训的应用上,从而为对话提供信息,以改善所有人的创伤教育,而不论其采用何种方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Surgical Education
Journal of Surgical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-SURGERY
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
10.30%
发文量
261
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Surgical Education (JSE) is dedicated to advancing the field of surgical education through original research. The journal publishes research articles in all surgical disciplines on topics relative to the education of surgical students, residents, and fellows, as well as practicing surgeons. Our readers look to JSE for timely, innovative research findings from the international surgical education community. As the official journal of the Association of Program Directors in Surgery (APDS), JSE publishes the proceedings of the annual APDS meeting held during Surgery Education Week.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信