当前趋势和共同主题的出版物有关私募股权投资进入骨科手术实践:关键要点。

IF 2.3 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS JBJS Open Access Pub Date : 2024-12-24 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00165
Abtahi Tishad, Ryan Skelly, Griffin Stinson, MaryBeth Horodyski, Rull James Toussaint
{"title":"当前趋势和共同主题的出版物有关私募股权投资进入骨科手术实践:关键要点。","authors":"Abtahi Tishad, Ryan Skelly, Griffin Stinson, MaryBeth Horodyski, Rull James Toussaint","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Private equity (PE) investment in health care has increased more than 250% between 2010 and 2020. This is mirrored by an increasing number of published materials in medical journals. The objective of our study was to identify and characterize trends and key themes seen within publications discussing the topic of PE investment into orthopaedic surgery practices and bias within those publications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The inclusion criteria for our study required an article to be published between the years 2003 and June 2024 and to contain the phrase \"orthopaedic surgery\" or \"orthopedics\" in addition to \"PE\" or \"PE investment.\" Based on these parameters, 15 articles met the criteria for inclusion. Articles were then evaluated to assess various themes related to general views expressed regarding PE firms, reasons for PE attraction to orthopaedics, and most cited positives/negatives of PE investment and potential conflicts of interest with respect to underlying relationships/associations with PE firms at the time of publication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 15 publications meeting the inclusion criteria, 4 (26.7%) expressed positive views on the topic of PE ownership of orthopaedic practices, while 4 (26.7%) expressed a neutral view and 7 (46.7%) expressed a negative outlook. Four (26.7%) of the articles had authors who were either employed or had ownership in a practice that was purchased by a PE firm. Of these 4 articles, none disclosed this potential conflict of interest. Three of the 4 articles had either a positive or neutral view of PE. The most cited reason for PE attraction to orthopaedics was revenue from ancillary services. The most cited upside of PE transactions was the possibility of benefiting from economies of scale, while the most cited downside was the misalignment of incentives.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The plurality of present studies views PE transactions negatively (46.7%). Our research unveiled 4 studies with undisclosed conflicts of interest (26.7%). In addition, orthopaedic surgeons should be wary of the numerous downsides of PE transactions, such as the misaligned incentives between themselves and PE firms.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Independent orthopaedic practices should be critical of the literature when evaluating the merits of potential partnerships with PE firms.</p>","PeriodicalId":36492,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Open Access","volume":"9 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11661745/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Current Trends and Common Themes in Publications Concerning Private Equity Investment Into Orthopaedic Surgery Practices: Key Takeaways.\",\"authors\":\"Abtahi Tishad, Ryan Skelly, Griffin Stinson, MaryBeth Horodyski, Rull James Toussaint\",\"doi\":\"10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00165\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Private equity (PE) investment in health care has increased more than 250% between 2010 and 2020. This is mirrored by an increasing number of published materials in medical journals. The objective of our study was to identify and characterize trends and key themes seen within publications discussing the topic of PE investment into orthopaedic surgery practices and bias within those publications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The inclusion criteria for our study required an article to be published between the years 2003 and June 2024 and to contain the phrase \\\"orthopaedic surgery\\\" or \\\"orthopedics\\\" in addition to \\\"PE\\\" or \\\"PE investment.\\\" Based on these parameters, 15 articles met the criteria for inclusion. Articles were then evaluated to assess various themes related to general views expressed regarding PE firms, reasons for PE attraction to orthopaedics, and most cited positives/negatives of PE investment and potential conflicts of interest with respect to underlying relationships/associations with PE firms at the time of publication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 15 publications meeting the inclusion criteria, 4 (26.7%) expressed positive views on the topic of PE ownership of orthopaedic practices, while 4 (26.7%) expressed a neutral view and 7 (46.7%) expressed a negative outlook. Four (26.7%) of the articles had authors who were either employed or had ownership in a practice that was purchased by a PE firm. Of these 4 articles, none disclosed this potential conflict of interest. Three of the 4 articles had either a positive or neutral view of PE. The most cited reason for PE attraction to orthopaedics was revenue from ancillary services. The most cited upside of PE transactions was the possibility of benefiting from economies of scale, while the most cited downside was the misalignment of incentives.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The plurality of present studies views PE transactions negatively (46.7%). Our research unveiled 4 studies with undisclosed conflicts of interest (26.7%). In addition, orthopaedic surgeons should be wary of the numerous downsides of PE transactions, such as the misaligned incentives between themselves and PE firms.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Independent orthopaedic practices should be critical of the literature when evaluating the merits of potential partnerships with PE firms.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBJS Open Access\",\"volume\":\"9 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11661745/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBJS Open Access\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00165\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Open Access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00165","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:私募股权(PE)在医疗保健领域的投资在2010年至2020年间增长了250%以上。这反映在医学杂志上发表的材料越来越多。我们研究的目的是确定和描述出版物中讨论私募股权投资进入骨科手术实践的趋势和关键主题,以及这些出版物中的偏见。方法:本研究的纳入标准是发表于2003年至2024年6月之间的文章,并且除了“PE”或“PE投资”之外还包含“骨科”或“骨科”一词。根据这些参数,有15篇文章符合纳入标准。然后对文章进行评估,以评估与PE公司表达的一般观点、PE吸引骨科的原因、最被引用的PE投资的积极/消极因素以及在发表时与PE公司的潜在关系/关联方面的潜在利益冲突相关的各种主题。结果:在符合纳入标准的15篇文献中,4篇(26.7%)对骨科执业PE所有权这一主题持正面看法,4篇(26.7%)持中性看法,7篇(46.7%)持负面看法。四篇(26.7%)文章的作者受雇于或拥有被私募股权公司收购的业务。在这4篇文章中,没有一篇披露了这种潜在的利益冲突。4篇文章中有3篇对私募股权持正面或中性看法。骨科吸引PE的最主要原因是来自辅助服务的收入。私募股权交易被提及最多的好处是有可能从规模经济中受益,而被提及最多的坏处是激励机制的错位。结论:多数研究对PE交易持否定态度(46.7%)。我们的研究揭示了4项研究存在未公开的利益冲突(26.7%)。此外,整形外科医生应该警惕私募股权交易的众多不利因素,比如他们自己和私募股权公司之间的不一致的激励机制。临床相关性:在评估与私募股权公司的潜在合作伙伴关系的优点时,独立的骨科实践应该对文献持批评态度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Current Trends and Common Themes in Publications Concerning Private Equity Investment Into Orthopaedic Surgery Practices: Key Takeaways.

Introduction: Private equity (PE) investment in health care has increased more than 250% between 2010 and 2020. This is mirrored by an increasing number of published materials in medical journals. The objective of our study was to identify and characterize trends and key themes seen within publications discussing the topic of PE investment into orthopaedic surgery practices and bias within those publications.

Methods: The inclusion criteria for our study required an article to be published between the years 2003 and June 2024 and to contain the phrase "orthopaedic surgery" or "orthopedics" in addition to "PE" or "PE investment." Based on these parameters, 15 articles met the criteria for inclusion. Articles were then evaluated to assess various themes related to general views expressed regarding PE firms, reasons for PE attraction to orthopaedics, and most cited positives/negatives of PE investment and potential conflicts of interest with respect to underlying relationships/associations with PE firms at the time of publication.

Results: Of the 15 publications meeting the inclusion criteria, 4 (26.7%) expressed positive views on the topic of PE ownership of orthopaedic practices, while 4 (26.7%) expressed a neutral view and 7 (46.7%) expressed a negative outlook. Four (26.7%) of the articles had authors who were either employed or had ownership in a practice that was purchased by a PE firm. Of these 4 articles, none disclosed this potential conflict of interest. Three of the 4 articles had either a positive or neutral view of PE. The most cited reason for PE attraction to orthopaedics was revenue from ancillary services. The most cited upside of PE transactions was the possibility of benefiting from economies of scale, while the most cited downside was the misalignment of incentives.

Conclusion: The plurality of present studies views PE transactions negatively (46.7%). Our research unveiled 4 studies with undisclosed conflicts of interest (26.7%). In addition, orthopaedic surgeons should be wary of the numerous downsides of PE transactions, such as the misaligned incentives between themselves and PE firms.

Clinical relevance: Independent orthopaedic practices should be critical of the literature when evaluating the merits of potential partnerships with PE firms.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JBJS Open Access
JBJS Open Access Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
An Updated Demographic Profile of Orthopaedic Surgery Using a New ABOS Data Set. ASA Class Is a Stronger Predictor of Early Revision Risk Following Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty than BMI. Erratum: Expanding the Pipeline: Exposure and Female Mentorship Increase Interest in Orthopaedic Surgery Among Female Premedical Undergraduate Students: Erratum. Fetal Cartilage Progenitor Cells in the Repair of Osteochondral Defects. Source Characteristics Influence AI-Enabled Orthopaedic Text Simplification: Recommendations for the Future.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1