The SRS AM is one of the premier venues for the distribution and discussion of new information regarding the management of pediatric spinal deformity. For pediatric orthopaedic spinal surgeons, the sessions devoted to AIS are of particular interest to the opportunity to exchange the latest developments in the field. Due to the importance of academic meetings in the dissemination of information in all areas of medicine, scrutiny of the information within presentations of this type has increased. Authors have analyzed studies’ levels of evidence, [3, 4] potential gender biases in acceptance and presentations, [5] rates of eventual publication of studies post-presentation, [6, 7, 8] the prevalence of duplicate presentations of identical content at multiple meetings, [9, 10] as well as changes in the institutional origin of presentations at certain meetings over time [11].

Another area of concern has been the increasing use of data from large, multi-center databases in academic presentations and publications. Data from these sources has been used widely in the adult orthopaedic surgery, particularly in the assessment of total joint arthroplasties [12, 13]. In pediatric orthopaedics, information from large databases has been used primarily regarding spinal deformity management [14] and pediatric trauma care [15]. Despite their broad utilization, multiple authors have reported potential issues with information derived from large multi-center study group databases [16, 17]. Golinveaux, et al urged caution regarding analyses of administrative data based on ICD coding due to concerns regarding accuracy of the information that may affect results or recommendations [18].

Similar to findings published in 2020, regarding presentations at the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA) Annual Meeting from 2011-2016, [11] Bram et al documented a statistically significant increase in both number and percentage of presentations affiliated with a study group and/or multi-site collaborations at the SRS Annual Meeting over the period from 2005-2019 [2]. In addition, Harshavardhana and Dormans reported a significant increase in Level of Evidence for SRS PP during a similar time period [3], and Bram et al highlighted the significant increase in Level I or II studies in those presentations affiliated with a study group versus those that papers that were not so associated [2].

 As such, it is clear that an increasing number of presentations at the SRS AM regarding AIS are resulting from analysis of data from large databases. Pooling of data in this manner has allowed authors to generate research that may be considered more valuable from a level of evidence and statistical standpoint due to larger sample numbers and possibly secondary to greater access to a more diverse patient population. However, one finding of this study may be of concern.

The SRS currently lists over 1,300 active members, while the HSG lists just 37 members. Based on our analysis over the 13-year study period, over 14% of abstracts presented during the AIS sessions of the SRS AM were generated by members of a study group-from clinical information derived from that study group’s data base-which is comprised of less than 3% of SRS membership. In some ways, this is analogous to the findings reported by Murphy, et al, who demonstrated that, despite a rigorous and blinded selection process, approximately 20% of the presentations at the POSNA AM from 2011-2016 were from authors affiliated with two North American, academic Pediatric Orthopaedic programs [11].

 This apparent predominance of presentations from the HSG during the study period may be simply a function of the overall high productivity and academic bent of the members of that group, as well as the volume and breadth of the patient data available for review within the associated database. Large, diverse sources of patient information are generally thought to be the best sources of information for medical decision-making, particularly for relatively uncommon clinical diagnoses like pediatric spinal deformity. However, there are concerns, including the level of standardization and quality of the data that has been input into the system. In light of these issues, it may be appropriate to look carefully at the selection processes for presentations at certain meetings, including the SRS, in an attempt to avoid inadvertently limiting other sources of information in favor of a small number of study groups and their affiliated members.

This study contains several limitations. The scope of this study was narrow, focusing only on PP within the AIS sessions at the SRS AM, and it is possible that a similarly conducted review of a more diverse sample of presentations would have yielded different results. Additionally, PP were identified as being the product of a study group by reviewing the listed authors for each abstract. While the more established study groups are regularly listed as an individual author, the same cannot always be said of newly formed study groups. Lastly, names of study groups have changed over time making it difficult to track them over the years.