Knowledge silos: assessing knowledge sharing between specialties through the vestibular schwannoma literature.

OBJECTIVE It is common for a medical disorder to be managed or researched by individuals who work within different specialties. It is known that both neurosurgeons and neurotologists manage vestibular schwannoma (VS) patients. While overlap in specialty focus has the potential to stimulate multidisciplinary collaboration and innovative thinking, there is a risk of specialties forming closed-communication loops, called knowledge silos, which may inhibit knowledge diffusion. This study quantitatively assessed knowledge sharing between neurosurgery and otolaryngology on the subject of VS. METHODS A broad Web of Science search was used to download details for 4439 articles related to VS through 2016. The publishing journal's specialty and the authors' specialties (based on author department) were determined for available articles. All 114,647 of the article references were categorized by journal specialty. The prevalence of several VS topics was assessed using keyword searches of titles. RESULTS For articles written by neurosurgeons, 44.0% of citations were from neurosurgery journal articles and 23.4% were from otolaryngology journals. The citations of otolaryngology authors included 11.6% neurosurgery journals and 56.5% otolaryngology journals. Both author specialty and journal specialty led to more citations of the same specialty, though author specialty had the largest effect. Comparing the specialties' literature, several VS topics had significantly different levels of coverage, including radiosurgery and hearing topics. Despite the availability of the Internet, there has been no change in the proportions of references for either specialty since 1997 (the year PubMed became publicly available). CONCLUSIONS Partial knowledge silos are observed between neurosurgery and otolaryngology on the topic of VS, based on the peer-reviewed literature. The increase in access provided by the Internet and searchable online databases has not decreased specialty reference bias. These findings offer lessons to improve cross-specialty collaboration, physician learning, and consensus building.