National Institutes of Health R01 Grant Funding Is Associated With Enhanced Research Productivity and Career Advancement Among Academic Cardiothoracic Surgeons

Academic Productivity in Ophthalmology and Its Correlation to National Economic Indicators Among the OECD Countries: A Bibliometric Analysis

PURPOSE

Prompted by the clinical concern that limited healthcare resources allocation affects physicians' research productivity, this study examines the association between bibliometric indices of ophthalmologic research and national economic indicators in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries.

METHODS

The Scimago Journal and Country rank source was searched for research productivity data in ophthalmology among OECD countries between 1996 and 2019. Bibliometric indices included: documents number, number and percent of citable documents, citations number, citations per document, and H-index. The updated economic indicators of each country (gross domestic product [GDP] per capita, health spending as percent of GDP (health expenditure), gross domestic expenditure on research, and development as percent of GDP [GERD]) were collected from the World Bank and the OECD websites. Correlation between economic and bibliometric metrics and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Among 267,444 documents analyzed, correlation analysis found a strong correlation between health expenditure and H index (r = 0.711, p < 0.001); a moderate correlation between health expenditure and documents number (r = 0.589, p < 0.001), number of citable document (r = 0.593, p < 0.001) and citations number (r = 0.673, p < 0.001); and a moderate correlation between GERD and H index (r = 0.564, p < 0.001). Multivariate regression analysis controlling for economic factors, population and language showed the independent association of these parameters with bibliometric indices.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates a positive correlation between bibliometric indicators of ophthalmology research and economic factors, particularly health expenditure, among the OECD countries. Our results suggest an advantage of domestic investment in health to expand academic productivity in the field of ophthalmology.

Near-peer Mentorship: Promoting Medical Student Research With Resident Pairing

BACKGROUND

Obtaining a clinical research mentor is a major barrier for medical students interested in research.

OBJECTIVE

To increase access to research, a Near-Peer Mentor Program (NPMP) was developed to pair medical students with resident mentors to submit case reports to an annual in-hospital research conference.

METHODS

Students and residents were recruited via surveys and paired based on students' specialty interests. Support in the form of templates, instructions and timelines were given. To evaluate the program's impact, we reviewed the number of pairs' projects at the conference, awards, and who advanced their projects to publications and conferences from 2019 to 2022.

RESULTS

During the study period, 173 students enrolled. The majority 106 (61.2%) were interested in medical specialties, followed by 47 (27.2%) in surgery and surgical subspecialities, and 20 (11.6%) undecided. All students were paired. One hundred and seventy (98.3%) had projects under resident mentors matching their specialty interests. One hundred and fifty (82.9%) completed the program and submitted a case report to the conference. Years with NPMP led to a 122% (55 in 2019 vs 122 in 2020) and 232% (50 in 2021 vs 166 in 2022) increase in medical student conference posters compared to the previous year without NPMP. In both years, NPMP students won all top 3 awards for best case report. Additionally, 10 pairs produced 6 peer-reviewed publications, 5 conference abstracts, and 2 conference oral presentations as first authors.

CONCLUSION

The NPMP successfully promoted medical student participation in clinical research. The program substantially increased student poster presentations and subsequent publications and presentations stemming from them.

Current status of National Institutes of Health funding for thoracic surgeons in the United States: Beacon of hope or candle in the wind?

OBJECTIVE

Increasing forces threaten the viability of thoracic surgeon-initiated research, a core component of our academic mission. National Institutes of Health funding is a benchmark of research productivity and innovation. This study examined the current status of National Institutes of Health funding for thoracic surgeons.

METHODS

Thoracic surgeon principal investigators on National Institutes of Health-funded grants during June 2010, June 2015, and June 2020 were identified using National Institutes of Health iSearchGrants (version 2.4). American Association of Medical Colleges data were used to identify all surgeons in the United States. Types and total costs of National Institutes of Health-funded grants were compared relative to other surgical specialties.

RESULTS

A total of 61 of 4681 (1.3%), 63 of 4484 (1.4%), and 60 of 4497 (1.3%) thoracic surgeons were principal investigators on 79, 76, and 87 National Institutes of Health-funded grants in 2010, 2015, and 2020, respectively; these rates were higher than those for most other surgical specialties (P ≤ .0001). Total National Institutes of Health costs for Thoracic Surgeon-initiated grants increased 57% from 2010 to 2020, outpacing the 33% increase in total National Institutes of Health budget. Numbers and types of grants varied among cardiovascular, transplant, and oncology subgroups. Although the majority of grants and costs were cardiovascular related, increased National Institutes of Health expenditures primarily were due to funding for transplant and oncology grants. Per-capita costs were highest for transplant-related grants during both years. Percentages of R01-to-total costs were constant at 55%. Rates and levels of funding for female versus male thoracic surgeons were comparable. Awards to 5 surgeons accounted for 33% of National Institutes of Health costs for thoracic surgeon principal investigators in 2020; a similar phenomenon was observed for 2010 and 2015.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term structural changes must be implemented to more effectively nurture the next generation of thoracic surgeon scientists.

National Institutes of Health funding among vascular surgeons is rare

BACKGROUND

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an essential source of funding for vascular surgeons conducting research. NIH funding is frequently used to benchmark institutional and individual research productivity, help determine eligibility for academic promotion, and as a measure of scientific quality. We sought to appraise the current scope of NIH funding to vascular surgeons by appraising the characteristics of NIH-funded investigators and projects. In addition, we also sought to determine whether funded grants addressed recent Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) research priorities.

METHODS

In April 2022, we queried the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database for active projects. We only included projects that had a vascular surgeon as a principal investigator. Grant characteristics were extracted from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results database. Principal investigator demographics and academic background information were identified by searching institution profiles.

RESULTS

There were 55 active NIH awards given to 41 vascular surgeons. Only 1% (41/4037) of all vascular surgeons in the United States receive NIH funding. Funded vascular surgeons are an average of 16.3 years out of training; 37% (n = 15) are women. The majority of awards (58%; n = 32) were R01 grants. Among the active NIH-funded projects, 75% (n = 41) are basic or translational research projects, and 25% (n = 14) are clinical or health services research projects. Abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease are the most commonly funded disease areas and together accounted for 54% (n = 30) of projects. Three SVS research priorities are not addressed by any of the current NIH-funded projects.

CONCLUSIONS

NIH funding of vascular surgeons is rare and predominantly consists of basic or translational science projects focused on abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease research. Women are well-represented among funded vascular surgeons. Although the majority of SVS research priorities receive NIH funding, three SVS research priorities are yet to be addressed by NIH-funded projects. Future efforts should focus on increasing the number of vascular surgeons receiving NIH grants and ensuring all SVS research priorities receive NIH funding.

Career Progression and Research Productivity of Women in Academic Cardiothoracic Surgery

BACKGROUND

The objective of this work was to delineate career progression and research productivity of women practicing cardiothoracic surgery in the academic setting.

METHODS

Cardiothoracic surgeons at the 79 accredited US cardiothoracic surgery training programs in 2020 were included in this cross-sectional analysis. Data regarding subspecialization, training, practice history, and publications were gathered from public sources including department websites, CTSNet, and Scopus.

RESULTS

A total of 1065 surgeons (51.3% cardiac, 32.1% thoracic, 16.6% congenital) were identified. Women accounted for 10.6% (113) of the population (7.9% of cardiac, 15.5% of thoracic, 9.6% of congenital surgeons). The median number of cardiothoracic surgeons per institution was 12 (interquartile range [IQR], 10-17), with a median of 1 woman (IQR, 0-2). Fifteen of 79 programs (19%) had no women. Among women faculty 5.3% were clinical instructors, 51.3% were assistant professors, 23.0% were associate professors, 16.8% were full professors, and 3.5% had unspecified titles (vs 2.0%, 32.9%, 23.0%, 37.5%, and 4.6% among men, respectively; P < .001). Women and men authored a comparable number of first-author (0.4 [IQR, 0.0-1.3] vs 0.5 [IQR, 0.0-1.1], P = .56) publications per year but fewer last-author (0.1 [IQR, 0.0-0.7] vs 0.4 [IQR, 0.0-1.3], P < .0001) and total publications per year (2.7 [IQR, 1.0-6.2] vs 3.7 [IQR, 1.3-7.8], P = .05) than men. The H-index was lower for women than for men overall (8.0 [IQR, 3.0-15.0] vs 15.0 [IQR, 7.0-28.0], P < .001) but was similar between men and women who had been practicing for 10 to 20 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Gender disparities persist in academic cardiothoracic surgery. Efforts should be made to support women in achieving senior roles and academic productivity.

Gender Disparity in National Institutes of Health Funding Among Surgeon-Scientists From 1995 to 2020

Importance

Surgical diseases account for approximately 30% of the global burden of disease. Gender diversity in biomedical research is critical to generate innovative patient-centered research in surgery.

Objective

To examine the distribution of biomedical research funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) among women and men surgeon-scientists during a 25-year period.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used publicly available data from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools: Expenditures and Results) database for research project grants awarded to women and men surgeon-scientists who were principal investigators between 1995 and 2020. Data were retrieved between January 20 and March 20, 2022. The representation of women surgeon-scientists among academic surgeons was compared with the representation of men surgeon-scientists over time.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Distribution of NIH funding to women and men surgeon-scientists was examined via 2 metrics: holding a large-dollar (ie, R01-equivalent) grant and being a super principal investigator (SPI) with $750 000 or more in total annual research funding. Statistical analysis was performed between April 1 and August 31, 2022.

Results

Between 1995 and 2020, 2078 principal investigator surgeons received funding from the NIH. The proportion of women academic surgeons who were surgeon-scientists remained unchanged during this same period (1995, 14 of 792 [1.8%] vs 2020, 92 of 3834 [2.4%]; P = .10). Compared with their men counterparts, women surgeon-scientists obtained their first NIH grant earlier in their career (mean [SD] years after first faculty appointment, 8.8 [6.2] vs 10.8 [7.9] years; P < .001) and were as likely to obtain large-dollar grants (aRR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.95-1.03]) during the period 2016 to 2020. Despite this success, women surgeon-scientists remained significantly underrepresented among SPIs and were 25% less likely to be an SPI (aRR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.60-0.95] during the period 2016 to 2020).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cross-sectional study of NIH-funded surgeons suggest that women surgeons remained underrepresented among surgeon-scientists over a 25-year period despite early career success in receiving NIH funding. This is concerning and warrants further investigation to increase the distribution of NIH funding among women surgeon-scientists.

Analysis of gender representation, authorship inflation, and institutional affiliation in abstract acceptance: a 5-year study

Purpose

Our goals were to characterize associations of author number, author gender, and institutional affiliation on ratings and acceptances of abstracts submitted to one surgical education conference over 5 years.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed all abstracts submitted between 2017 and 2021 to the annual meeting of the Association for Surgical Education (ASE). Abstract data included average rater scores, acceptance status, author lists, and institutional affiliations. We cross-referenced last author affiliation with top-40 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded institutions and used a gender determination software to code first and last author genders.

Results

We analyzed 1,162 abstracts. Higher reviewer scores demonstrated positive, weak associations with more authors [r(1160) = 0.191, p < 0.001] and institutions [r(1160) = 0.182, p < 0.001]. Significantly higher scores were noted for abstracts with last authors affiliated with top-40 NIH-funded institutions [4.18 (SD 0.96) vs. 3.72 (SD 1.12), p < 0.001]. Women were first authors (51.8%) (n = 602) and last authors (35.4%) (n = 411) of the time. Abstracts were rated significantly higher with women rather than men as first authors [3.98 (SD 0.99) vs. 3.82 (SD 1.12), p = 0.011] or last [4.01 (SD 1.04) vs. 3.82 (SD 1.10), p = 0.005]. Across all years, abstracts were accepted more often as podium or plenary presentations when submitted by women first [n = 279, 59.7% (p = 0.002)] or last [n = 183, 38.4% (p = 0.095)] authors.

Conclusion

Abstracts whose last authors were affiliated with top-40 NIH-funded institutions received significantly higher scores, possibly indicating increased tangible or intangible resources contributing to research efforts. Abstracts with women first and last authors scored higher and were more frequently invited for plenary and podium presentations.

Diminishing Basic Science Research Experience Among United States Cardiothoracic Surgery Trainees

INTRODUCTION

There is growing concern regarding the attrition of surgeon-scientists. To understand the decline of basic science research (BSR), it is essential to examine trends in research conducted by trainees. We hypothesized that, over recent decades, cardiothoracic (CT) surgery trainees have published fewer BSR articles.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CT surgeons at United States training institutions in 2020 who completed training in the past three decades, excluding international trainees, were analyzed (1991-2000: n = 148; 2001-2010: n = 228; 2011-2020: n = 247). Publication records were obtained from Scopus. Articles with medical subject heading terms involving molecular/cellular or animal research were classified as BSR using the National Institutes of Health iCite Translation module. Data were analyzed using Fisher's exact test or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

RESULTS

While the proportion of surgeons who published a first-author paper during training remained stable over the past two decades (178/228 [78.1%] versus 189/247 [76.5%], P = 0.7427), the proportion who published a first-author BSR paper decreased significantly (135/228 [59.2%] versus 96/247 [38.9%], P < 0.0001). Among surgeons who published a first-author paper in training, the total papers published by each trainee did not change over the past two decades (3.5 versus 3.3 first-author papers per 10 y of training, P = 0.8819). However, the number of BSR papers published during training decreased significantly (1.7 versus 0.8 first-author papers per 10 y of training, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

CT surgery trainees are publishing fewer BSR papers. Additional efforts are needed to increase exposure of trainees to BSR and reaffirm that BSR is a valuable and worthwhile pursuit for academic surgeons.

Characterization of Cardiothoracic Surgeons Actively Leading Basic Science Research

BACKGROUND

There is increasing concern regarding the attrition of surgeon-scientists in cardiothoracic (CT) surgery. However, the characteristics of CT surgeons who are actively leading basic science research (BSR) have not been examined. We hypothesized that early exposure to BSR during training and active grant funding are important factors that facilitate the pursuit of BSR among practicing CT surgeons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We created a database of 992 CT surgeons listed as faculty at accredited United States CT surgery teaching hospitals in 2018. Data regarding each surgeon's training/professional history, publication record, and National Institutes of Health funding were acquired from publicly available online sources. Surgeons who published at least one first- or last-author paper in 2017-2018 were considered to be active, lead researchers.

RESULTS

Of the 992 CT surgeons, 73 (7.4%) were actively leading BSR, and 599 (60.4%) were actively leading only non-BSR. Only 2 women were actively leading BSR. Surgeons actively leading BSR were more likely to have earned a PhD degree (20.5% versus 9.7%, P = 0.0049), and more likely to have published a first-author BSR paper during training (76.7% versus 40.9%, P< 0.0001). Surgeons actively leading BSR were also more likely to have an active National Institutes of Health grant (34.2% versus 5.8%, P< 0.0001), especially an R01 grant (21.9% versus 2.5%, P< 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

A small minority of CT surgeons at academic training hospitals are actively leading BSR. In order to facilitate the development of surgeon-scientists, additional support must be given to trainees and junior faculty, especially women, to enable early engagement in BSR.

Characterization of academic cardiothoracic surgeons who started as attendings in private or community practice

BACKGROUND

Surgeons are traditionally categorized as working either in academic or private/community practice, but some transition between the two environments. Here, we profile current academic cardiothoracic surgeons who began their attending careers in private or community practice. We hypothesized that research activity may distinguish cardiothoracic surgeons who started in non-academic versus academic practice.

METHODS

Publicly available data regarding professional history and research productivity were collected for 992 academic cardiothoracic surgeons on faculty at the 77 cardiothoracic surgery training programs in the United States in 2018. Data are presented as medians analyzed with the Mann-Whitney test or proportions analyzed with Fisher exact test or the χ² test.

RESULTS

A total of 80 (8.1%) academic cardiothoracic surgery faculty started their careers in non-academic practice, and 912 (91.9%) started directly in academia. Those who started in non-academic practice spent a median 7.0 y in private/community practice and were more likely to be cardiac surgeons (68.8% vs 51.6%, P = .0132). They were equally likely to pursue a protected research fellowship (56.3% vs 57.0%, P = .9067) and publish research during training (92.5% vs 91.1%, P = .8374), but they published fewer total papers by the end of cardiothoracic surgery fellowship (3.0 vs 7.0, P = .0001) and fewer papers per year as an academic attending (0.8 vs 2.9, P < .0001). Nevertheless, the majority of cardiothoracic surgery faculty who started in non-academic practice are currently active in research (68.8%), and 2 such surgeons received National Institutes of Health R01 funding.

CONCLUSION

Transitioning from non-academic to academic practice is an uncommon but feasible pathway for interested cardiothoracic surgeons.

Career Research Productivity Correlates With Medical School Ranking Among Cardiothoracic Surgeons

BACKGROUND

The foundation for a successful academic surgical career begins in medical school. We examined whether attending a top-ranked medical school is correlated with enhanced research productivity and faster career advancement among academic cardiothoracic (CT) surgeons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Research profiles and professional histories were obtained from publicly available sources for all CT surgery faculty at accredited US CT surgery teaching hospitals in 2018 (n = 992). We focused on surgeons who completed medical school in the United States during or after 1990, the first-year US News & World Report released its annual medical school research rankings (n = 451). Subanalyses focused on surgeons who completed a research fellowship (n = 299) and those who did not (n = 152).

RESULTS

A total of 124 surgeons (27.5%) attended a US News & World Report top 10 medical school, whereas 327 (72.5%) did not. Surgeons who studied at a top 10 medical school published more articles per year as an attending surgeon (3.2 versus 1.9; P < 0.0001), leading to more total publications (51.5 versus 27.0; P < 0.0001) and a higher H-index (16.0 versus 11.0; P < 0.0001) over a similar career duration (11.0 versus 10.0 y; P = 0.1294). These differences in career-long research productivity were statistically significant regardless of whether the surgeons completed a research fellowship or not. The surgeons in both groups, however, required a similar number of years to reach associate professor rank (P = 0.6993) and full professor rank (P = 0.7811) after starting their first attending job.

CONCLUSIONS

Attending a top-ranked medical school is associated with enhanced future research productivity but not with faster career advancement in academic CT surgery.