BJS Academy SoMe Review for April 2022
6 May 2022
Collaborative research has attracted a lot of attention on social media lately. Its methodological validity and issues with authorship have been the subject of a heated controversy on Twitter in April 2022.
On April 2nd, Kenneth McLean @kennethmclean92 congratulated @EuroSurg on the publication in @BJSurgery of a collaborative study on a controversial matter: the use of intraabdominal drains after elective colorectal surgery.
@EuroSurg is a highly successful European surgical research network of students and surgeons running multicentre studies. Their website can be accessed here https://eurosurg.org/.
The tweet had received 10 retweets, 24 likes and on quote tweet by May 3rd
One day later, Kjetil Soreide @ksoreide wondered if it is appropriate to kill two birds with one stone when treating patients with synchronous primary colorectal cancer and liver metastasis. He was citing a @BJSurgery tweet about this paper https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znab457
The tweet had received 1 retweet and 4 likes by May 3rd
A Spanish colorectal surgery, Curro Blanco @Curro_Blanco , tweeted in Spanish to show his interest in the @BJSurgery paper titled “Impact of adverse events on surgeons” by Kevin Turner et al. on April 6th.
The article can be accessed here https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znab447. The tweet had received 2 retweets and 7 likes by May 3rd.
The tweet had received 2 retweets and 7 likes by May 3rd
Ruth Blanco Colino @ruthbc93, a brilliant surgical resident at Vall d’Hebron Hospital in Barcelona, also tweeted in Spanish about the @EuroSurg paper “Intraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: international matched, prospective, cohort study”
Her tweet generated good engagement with 7 retweets and 14 likes by May 3rd
Paper https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znac069
But it was mid-April when a heated debate started on Twitter after a @BJSurgery “Gloves Off” paper by Martin Bjork @mabjo425 (Link to the paper https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znac100). Martin questioned some of the statements made by Li and Banghu (https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znac099) about collaborative research and questioned its scientific validity and the authorship model used in collaborations.
Dmitri Nepogodiev @dnepo, who has brilliantly spearheaded the largest surgical collaborative to date, @CovidSurg, tweeted his response to Martin Bjork’s criticism on April 15th. The first tweet had received 14 retweets, 43 likes and four quote tweets by May 3rd.
If you are interested in reading Dmitri Nepogodiev’s thread, see below:
On the same day, April 15th, Augustinas Bausys posted his arguments against the authorship model, whereas Ewen Griffiths tweeted in favor of collaborative research.
Bausys’ tweet had received 4 likes by May 3rd and can be accessed here:
Griffiths’ tweet had 7 likes by May 3rd and can be seen here:
On April 17th, the controversy between Martin Björk and Dmitri Nepogodiev continued:
On April 19th, Rebecca Grossman @rebgross shared her first leading article “Harassment in Surgery: line in the sand” published in @BJSurgery on Twitter. (Link to the article https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znac085). This is an extremely important issue and action should be taken to change the culture and prevent harassment.
Her tweet was very engaging. It received 33 retweets, 88 likes, and four quote tweets:
@BJSOpen shared a video and the link to a paper on the use of wearables to monitor recovery after surgery on Twitter on April 20th. This #openaccess paper can be read here https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac031
The tweet with the video had five retweets, 12 likes and one quote tweet by May 3rd:
Six days later, on April 26th, @BJSOpen tweeted again a video and the link to a review paper on the definition of futility in emergency laparotomy. The #openaccess paper can be read here https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac023
The tweet had a large repercussion, with 12 retweets, 24 likes and 8 quote tweets by May 3rd
Academy
Part of the charitable activity of the Foundation, BJS Academy is an online educational resource for current and future surgeons.
The Academy is comprised of five distinct sections: Continuing surgical education, Young BJS, Cutting edge, Scientific surgery and Surgical news. Although the majority of this is open access, additional content is available to BJS subscribers and strategic partners.
