Incidence of Scholarly Publication by Selected Content Experts Presenting at National Society Foot and Ankle Meetings From 2016 to 2020.

Abstract

Continuing medical education (CME) is an important element to maintain licensing requirements, enhance professional competence, and disseminate up to date, evidence-based, treatment recommendations. A key resource of CME are the 2 annual society meetings hosted by the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons (ACFAS) and American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS). It is assumed that the selected speakers at these meetings are content experts, providing validated expertise on treatment recommendations, rather than anecdotal experience or opinion. Across all medical specialists, peer-reviewed publication(s) on a particular subject matter have long bestowed the ultimate validity of "expertise." The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence of scholarly publication for invited speakers at the ACFAS and AOFAS annual meetings from 2016 to 2020, in relation to the topic they were selected to present. A review of invited lectures given at the ACFAS and AOFAS annual meetings from 2016 to 2020 was conducted, and lecturer demographics were categorized into predetermined content areas for assessment. Selected speakers were individually cross-referenced with content-specific peer-reviewed published literature, and overall h-index using Scopus. Topic and society specific comparisons were then made. Overall, 1028 lectures were identified during the temporal period. Only 300 (29.18%) presentations were given by a speaker with least one or more publication on the society specific lecture-topic presented. The greatest proportion of lecturers with content-specific publications was Charcot reconstruction (67.57%) followed by ankle fusion/replacement (55%). The average presenter h-index was greatest among total ankle replacement/ankle fusion (12.16 ± 6.90) and Charcot reconstruction (11.27 ± 7.10) content. The results of the present study illustrate a disparity of expertise among different content areas. While both meetings provide well-published lecturers, this study reveals areas for improvement.