Existence of knowledge silos in the adult blunt cerebrovascular injury literature

Abstract

Background Blunt cerebrovascular injuries (BCVI) remain a significant source of disability and mortality among trauma patients. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether knowledge silos exist in the overall BCVI literature.Methods An object-oriented programmatic script written in Python programming language was used to extract and categorize articles and references on the topic of BCVI. Additionally, each BCVI article was searched for by digital object identifier in the other BCVI references to build a network analysis and visualize topic reference patterns. Analyses were performed using Stata V.14.2 (StataCorp).Results A total of 306 articles with 10 282 references were included for analysis. Of these, 24% (74) were published in neurosurgery journals, 45% (137) were published in trauma journals, and 31% (95) were published in a journal of another specialty. Similar proportions were found when categorized by author departmental affiliation. Trauma surgery authors disproportionately referenced articles in the trauma literature, compared with neurosurgeons (73.5% vs. 48.0%, p<0.0001), and other authors. The biggest factor influencing reference proportions was the specialty of the publishing journal. Finally, a network analysis revealed that there are more trauma BCVI articles, and there are more frequently cited trauma BCVI articles by all specialties.Conclusions This study revealed the existence of a one-way knowledge silo in the BCVI literature. However, a robust preference by both trauma and neurosurgery to cite trauma references when publishing in trauma journals may indicate a possible conscious curating of citations by authors to increase the likelihood of publication. These observations highlight the need for an active role by journal editors, peer reviewers, and authors to actively foster diversity of citations and cross-specialty collaboration to improve dissemination of information between these specialties.Level of evidence Level IV. Observational study.