Time-trends in publication productivity of young transplant surgeons in the United States

Have we forgotten imaging prior to and after kidney transplantation?

KEY POINTS

• The number of publications on imaging and kidney transplantation is low. • These publications are poorly cited, as compared with other fields of imaging. • Conversely, there is a clinical need for evidence-based recommendations. • Innovative advances for the use of imaging and kidney transplantation are essential. • An increased focus and adequate research funding are highly anticipated by clinicians.

Academic versus Clinical Productivity of Cardiac Surgeons in the State of New York: Who Publishes More and Who Operates More

We investigated whether/how cardiac surgeons can be productive both academically and clinically. Using online resources (New York State Adult Cardiac Surgery database, SCOPUS), we collected individual clinical volumes (operations performed/year), academic metrics (ongoing publications, role as author), practice setting, and seniority for all cardiac surgeons in the State of New York from 1994 to 2011. Over time, individual clinical volumes decreased (median operations/year: 193 in 1995 vs 126 in 2010; P < 0.001), whereas academic productivity remained unchanged (median publications/year: 0.7 vs 0.3; P = 0.55). There was no correlation (Spearman's correlation coefficient: -0.061; P = 0.08) between the number of new publications and operations/year for the whole population. More operations/year (median: 155 vs 144; P = 0.03) were performed by surgeons without versus with publications during that same year. Who published more worked at hospitals with higher clinical volumes (Spearman's correlation coefficient: 0.16; P < 0.001) and was more likely affiliated with thoracic surgery fellowship programs (median publications/year: 1.7 for affiliated vs 0 for nonaffiliated surgeons; P < 0.001). Cardiac surgeons could be classified into four categories: ∼40 per cent clinically busy, but not publishing at all; ∼45 per cent operating less, but publishing a little; ∼15 per cent clinically very productive (operating as much as the non-publishers) and publishing a lot; and ∼1 per cent operating the least, but publishing the most.

Publication Productivity of Early-Career Orthopedic Trauma Surgeons

The goals of this study were to: (1) define the publication productivity of early-career orthopedic trauma surgeons over time; (2) compare the early-career publication productivity of recent orthopedic trauma fellowship graduates vs their more senior colleagues; and (3) determine the proportion of fellowship graduates who meet the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) publication criteria for active membership early in their careers. Orthopedic trauma fellowship graduates from 1982 to 2007 were analyzed. A literature search was performed for each fellow's publications for the 6-year period beginning the year of fellowship graduation. Publication productivity was compared between early and recent groups of graduates, 1987 to 1991 and 2003 to 2007, respectively. Fulfillment of OTA publication criteria was determined. Seventy-nine percent of graduates contributed to 1 or more publications. The recent group produced more total publications per graduate (4.06 vs 3.29, P=.01) and more coauthor publications (2.60 vs 2.04, P=.019) than the early group. The number of first-author publications did not differ between groups (1.46 vs 1.25, P=.26). A greater percentage of the recent group met current OTA publication criteria compared with the early group (51% vs 35%, P=.04). The findings showed that recent orthopedic trauma graduates had increased publication productivity compared with their more senior colleagues, although a proportion had not qualified for active OTA membership 6 years into their career. Overall, these data are encouraging and suggest that young orthopedic trauma surgeons remain committed to sustaining a high level of academic excellence.

Recent trends in National Institutes of Health funding for surgery: 2003 to 2013

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to compare the compositions of federally funded surgical research between 2003 and 2013, and to assess differences in funding trends between surgery and other medical specialties.

DATA SOURCES

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool database was queried for grants within core surgical disciplines during 2003 and 2013. Funding was categorized by award type, methodology, and discipline. Application success rates for surgery and 5 nonsurgical departments were trended over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Inflation-adjusted NIH funding for surgical research decreased 19% from $270 M in 2003 to $219 M in 2013, with a shift from R-awards to U-awards. Proportional funding to outcomes research almost tripled, while translational research diminished. Nonsurgical departments have increased NIH application volume over the last 10 years; however, surgery's application volume has been stagnant. To preserve surgery's role in innovative research, new efforts are needed to incentivize an increase in application volume.