Recent trends in publication of basic science and clinical research by United States investigators in anesthesia journals

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>United States anesthesia research production declined sharply from 1980-2005. Whether this trend has continued despite recent calls to improve output is unknown. We conducted an observational internet analysis to quantify American basic science and clinical anesthesia research output in 14 anesthesia journals with impact factors greater than one at three-year intervals during the past decade.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>American investigators published 1,486 (21.7%) of the total of 6,845 research articles identified in anesthesia journals in 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010. Approximately two-thirds of all US articles were published in <it>Anesthesiology </it>and <it>Anesthesia and Analgesia</it>. There was a significant correlation (r²= 0.316; P = 0.036) between the number of articles published by American authors in each anesthesia journal and the corresponding journal's impact factor in 2010. Significantly (P < 0.05; Pearson's Chi-square) fewer basic science articles were published in 2007 and 2010 compared with 2001. US clinical research output also declined in 2007 (201; 15.7%) compared with 2001 (266; 19.1%) and 2004, but an increase occurred in 2010 (279; 21.8%, P < 0.05 versus 2007).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results indicate that US anesthesia research output continued to decrease from 2001 to 2007. An increase in clinical but not basic science research was observed in 2010 compared with 2007, suggesting that a modest recovery in clinical research production may have begun.</p

Safety of Epidural Corticosteroid Injections

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Epidural corticosteroid injections (ESIs) have been used for several decades and now represent the most common intervention performed for the management of back pain with a radicular component. However, several reports have presented devastating complications and adverse effects, which fuelled concerns over the risk versus clinical effectiveness. The authors offer a comprehensive review of the available literature and analyse the data derived from studies and case reports. METHODS: Studies were identified by searching PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library to retrieve all available relevant articles. Publications from the last 20 years (September 1994 to September 2014) were considered for further analysis. Studies selected were English-language original articles publishing results on complications related to the technique used for cervical and lumbar ESIs. The studies had to specify the approach used for injection. All studies that did not fulfil these eligibility criteria were excluded from further analysis. RESULTS: Overall, the available literature supports the view that serious complications following injections of corticosteroid suspensions into the cervical and lumbar epidural space are uncommon, but if they occur they can be devastating. CONCLUSIONS: The true incidence of such complications remains unclear. Direct vascular injury and/or administration of injectates intra-arterially represent a major concern and could account for the vast majority of the adverse events reported. Accurate placement of the needle, use of a non-particulate corticosteroid, live fluoroscopy, digital subtraction angiography, and familiarisation of the operator with contrast patterns on fluoroscopy should minimise these risks. The available literature has several limitations including incomplete documentation, unreported data and inherent bias. Large registries and well-structured observational studies are needed to determine the true incidence of adverse events and address the safety concerns