Journal of Anesthesia History最新文献

Purpose

The impact of academic journals on scientific activity can be measured using different approaches. The aim of this study was to assess the leading anesthesia journals as springboards for new developments in the field of anesthesia.

Methods

The selection of the topics for analysis was based on the degree of increase in the number of articles on a topic that was at the center of specialty interest during 1966-2015. The assessment of a journal's response to a new development was made by measuring the number of initial articles on a related topic. Six leading anesthesia journals were assessed collectively and individually as to whether their responses to new developments were prompt and prominent.

Results

The role of the leading specialty journals in presentation of 28 topics related to prominent new developments in anesthesia was found to depend on the nature of topics and the type of articles. Compared with all PubMed journals publishing articles associated with anesthesia in 1966-2015, the six leading anesthesia journals published 43% of drug-related research articles, 30% of technique-related research articles, and 16% of both drug- and technique-related review articles. Regarding initial publications (on new topics), this group of six journals contributed comparably more articles: from 43% to 84% of drug-related research articles, from 30% to 49% of technique-related research articles, from 16% to 33% of drug-related review articles, and from 16% to 25% of technique-related review articles. The approximate doubling of the shares demonstrates the dominance of this group of journals in the swiftness response to new anesthesia developments.

The promptness of reaction to new developments in anesthesia of each of the six leading anesthesia journals was assessed (the combination of drug- and technique-related articles) based on the number of articles published among the first (first 5 plus next 30) on all 28 topics. The ranking order of four journals (with the highest number of all 1966-2015 articles) regarding early publications was (from high to low): Anesthesia & Analgesia, British Journal of Anaesthesia, Anesthesiology, and Anaesthesia.

Conclusion

This study assesses six leading anesthesia journals for their function as springboards for new developments in anesthesia over the past 50 years. The dominance of leading journals in initial publications on 28 drug-related and technique-related topics was clearly demonstrated. The results also indicate the possibility of using promptness of response to new advances for quantitative assessment of this aspect of a journal's contribution to the specialty.

Phineas T. Barnum (1810-1891) and Gardner Q. Colton (1814-1898) both entered the laughing gas show business in Manhattan in 1844. With Horace Wells (1815-1848), Colton introduced inhaled nitrous oxide for dental anesthesia in December 1844. The Barnumesque nature of laughing gas exhibitions may have contributed to the initially negative reception of nitrous anesthesia as humbug. Colton continued laughing gas shows after 1844, and he performed in a Barnum forum in Boston in 1862. In 1863, Barnum encouraged Colton to establish a flourishing painless dentistry practice in Manhattan.

Barnum designated himself to be the Prince of Humbug. He embraced humbug for entertainment purposes but decried medical humbug. Notwithstanding, Barnum explicitly evinced awareness of the power of the placebo response. Accordingly, the proneness of individuals to deem impersonal all-purpose assessments to be personally applicable is dubbed the Barnum effect. Barnum was indirectly connected to Painless Parker (1872-1952), a dentist who exploited sensational advertising and humbug and ran a circus.

The term “Iron Curtain” described the barrier between communist East Europe and the capitalist West from 1945. Next the term “cold war” was introduced for the confrontation between these two sides without open warfare, because of the deterrent of atomic weapons. Restriction in collaboration between those on either side extended to the medical profession, including anesthesia, resuscitation and intensive care. Archives and publications from both sides of the Iron Curtain were perused to reveal the important role of those who defied the Cold War to maintain collaboration between anesthesiologists. From 1956 the British doyen of anesthesia, Sir Robert Macintosh began liaison with personnel in the USSR, which led to reciprocal visits. In this liaison a notable Russian anesthesiologist was Igor Zhorov. Then the WHO Copenhagen Anaesthesiology Centre had an impact. Later liaison from the USA came via Emanuel Papper, followed by Peter Safar. Other notable participants included Vladimir Negovsky from the USSR as well as Hugo Keszler and Jiri Pokorny from Czechoslovakia. These efforts in collaboration helped improvement of standards on both sides of the Iron Curtain.

During the 19^th century, patients undergoing anesthesia for surgical and dental procedures were at risk of being given hypoxic or dilute nitrous oxide on four separate occasions. Primary and secondary saturation during surgery could account for two administrations of 100% nitrous-oxide anesthesia, while both diagnostic and therapeutic doses of dilute nitrous oxide were frequently administered in mental asylums.