Context: Traditionally, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires residency programs to implement research and other scholarly activities into their training curriculum. Encouraging residents to publish during residency is believed to promote research throughout their careers; however, no study has attempted to quantify research productivity among orthopedic surgery residents before, during, and after residency. Objectives: To determine whether publishing in peer-reviewed journals during orthopedic residencies was an indicator of continued academic achievement after graduation. Methods: This study was observational in nature and employed a cross-sectional design. We examined whether research outcomes during orthopedic residency was associated with academic advancement or continued research involvement after residency. We identified 201 orthopedic residency programs on the Doximity website and randomly selected 50 to include in our sample. Of these programs, graduate rosters for 31 programs were located and subsequently included. Of the 341 graduates identified, we recorded the number of peer-reviewed publications, H-indices, fellowships, and whether the graduate pursued a career in private practice or academia. Results: Orthopedic residency graduates from 31 programs published a total of 1923 peer-reviewed manuscripts. On average, residents had a total of 5.6 publications and an h-index of 3.2. Residents entering academia and pursuing fellowships had a significantly higher total number of publications, higher number of first-author publications, and greater H-indices compared to those who did not enter academia or pursue a fellowship. Conclusions: Increased research productivity was associated with continued academic pursuits and an increased likelihood of pursuing fellowship training after residency.

The ability to stop unwanted memories from coming to mind is theorised to be essential for maintaining good mental health. People can employ intentional strategies to prevent conscious intrusions of negative memories, and repeated attempts to stop retrieval both reduces the frequency of intrusions and improves subsequent emotions elicited by those memories. However, it is still unknown whether memory control can improve negative emotions immediately, at the time control is attempted. It is also not clear which strategy is most beneficial for emotion regulation; clearing the mind of any thoughts of negative memories via direct suppression, or substituting memory recall with alternative thoughts. Here, we provide novel evidence that memory control immediately regulates negative emotions associated with autobiographical memories of morally wrong actions. Repeated control significantly improved negative emotions over time, regardless of the strategy used to implement control. Thought substitution involving either positive diversionary thinking or counterfactual thinking both induced positive feelings, whereas direct suppression neutralised emotions, regardless of whether memories were positive or negative. These empirical findings have implications for clinical practice as they indicate that memory control strategies could be effective emotion regulation methods for real-world intrusive memories.

Background: Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug worldwide. In addition to potential adverse effects, an estimated 9% consistent cannabis users are likely to become dependent and may develop a cannabis use disorder (CUD). Methods: This cross-sectional study developed a search strategy using Ovid, MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on CUD treatment in June 2020. These reviews were evaluated for conflicts of interest (COIs) per previously developed classification scheme. Our primary objectives were to (1) evaluate the presence of disclosed or undisclosed COI of systematic review authors, regarding treatment of CUD; and (2) determine whether overall summary effect estimates, narrative results and conclusions were influenced by the presence of disclosed or undisclosed COIs among systematic review authors. Results: Our systematic search returned 560 articles which 9 systematic reviews were eligible for data extraction. We found 77.8% (7/9) contained at least one author with a COI. From the 51 authors included, 29.4% (15/51) were found to have a COI. Forty-four percent (4/9) were funded, 22.2% (2/9) were not funded, and 33.3% (3/9) had no funding statements. Out of the 7 systematic reviews with one or more authors containing COI, 14.2% (1/7) included results favoring the treatment group and 28.6% (2/7) included conclusions favoring the treatment group. Our results showed no significance between funding source and results (p = 0.429) or conclusions. Additionally, we found no significance between the presence of COIs with the favorability of results (p = 0.56) or conclusions. Conclusion: Multiple studies favored the treatment of cannabis-containing products, even though COIs were found in the majority of the systematic reviews. COIs have the ability to sway results of a study, which can affect clinical decision-making. Stricter guidelines should be enforced among authors displaying COIs in systematic reviews studying CUD treatment.