Quality and impact of survey research among anesthesiologists: A systematic review

Abstract

New technology has facilitated survey research of anesthesia professional society members. We evaluated prevailing metrics of quality and impact of published research studies based on surveys of anesthesiologists. We hypothesized that adherence to recommended practices (such as use of reminders) would be associated with increased survey response rates, and that higher response rates would be associated with higher article impact. Using the MEDLINE database, we identified 45 English-language research articles published in 2010–2017 reporting original data from surveys of anesthesiologists. The median response rate was 37% (IQR: 25–46%). Recommended survey practices, including the use of reminders (p = 0.861) and validated questionnaires (p = 0.719), were not correlated with response rates. In turn, survey response rates were not associated with measures of article impact (p = 0.528). The impact of published research based on surveys of anesthesiologists, as measured by citation scores (p = 0.493) and Altmetrics (p = 0.826), may be driven primarily by the novel data or questions raised using survey methodology, but does not appear to be associated with response rates. Improving reporting of survey methodology and understanding possible sources of non-response bias are important for future studies in this area.