"Top 20" residency-trained academic orthopaedic surgeons have higher academic productivity and funding in their careers.

"Top 20" status on Doximity, an online networking service for medical professionals, is an indicator of the reputation of a residency program. The study assesses how training at a Top 20 (T20) orthopaedic residency program impacts career productivity and funding. Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database was used in 2022 to identify active orthopaedic residency programs. Demographic and training data was collected for each orthopaedic surgeon using institutional websites and Doximity. The Residency Navigator feature on Doximity was used to rank residency programs by "reputation." Programs were categorized as either T20 or non-T20. The relative citation ratio (RCR) was calculated using the NIH iCite tool and Hirsch index (h-index) was calculated using Scopus. Industry funding was collected from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Program (CMS) for all available years (2014-2020). A total of 2812 academic orthopaedic surgeons were included in the study. Among academic orthopaedic surgeons in the United States, T20 trained orthopedists had more publications and citations (p < 0.001), along with higher h-indices (p < 0.001), RCR (p < 0.001), and industry funding (p = 0.043). Additionally, T20 trained orthopedists were 1.375 times more likely to obtain professor status (95% confidence interval: 1.150-1.645, p < 0.001). Even after propensity-matched analysis, T20 trained orthopedists maintained these differences. Training at a T20 residency program is associated with promotion, productivity, and funding. These findings are especially of concern to medical students who must consider the importance of a residency program's reputation when deciding where to apply for residency.

Evaluation of the National Institutes of Health-supported relative citation ratio among American orthopedic spine surgery faculty: A new bibliometric measure of scientific influence.

Background: Publication metrics have been traditionally used to compare research productivity amongst academic faculty. However, traditional bibliometrics lack field-normalization and are often biased towards time-dependent publication factors. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has developed a new, field-normalized, article-level metric, known as the "relative citation ratio" (RCR), that can be used to make accurate self, departmental, and cross-specialty comparisons of research productivity. This study evaluates the use of the RCR amongst academic orthopedic spine surgery faculty and analyzes physician factors associated with RCR values. Methods: A retrospective data analysis was performed using the iCite database for all fellowship trained orthopedic spine surgery (OSS) faculty associated with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited orthopedic surgery residency program. Mean RCR, weighted RCR, and total publication count were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and presence of additional degrees. A value of 1.0 is the NIH-funded field-normalized standard. Student t-tests were used for two-group analyses whereas the analysis of variance tests (ANOVA) was used for between-group comparisons of three or more subgroups. Statistical significance was achieved at P < 0.05. Results: A total of 502 academic OSS faculty members from 159 institutions were included in the analysis. Overall, OSS faculty were highly productive, with a median RCR of 1.62 (IQR 1.38-2.32) and a median weighted RCR of 68.98 (IQR 21.06-212.70). Advancing academic rank was associated with weighted RCR, career longevity was associated with mean RCR score, and male sex was associated with having increased mean and weighted RCR scores. All subgroups analyzed had an RCR value above 1.0. Conclusions: Academic orthopedic spine surgery faculty produce impactful research as evidenced by the high median RCR relative to the standard value set by the NIH of 1.0. Our data can be used to evaluate research productivity in the orthopedic spine community.

Relative Citation Ratio of Top Twenty Macedonian Biomedical Scientists in PubMed: A New Metric that Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level.

AIM: The aim of this study was to analyze relative citation ratio (RCR) of top twenty Macedonian biomedical scientists with a new metric that uses citation rates to measure influence at the article level. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Top twenty Macedonian biomedical scientists were identified by GoPubMed on the base of the number of deposited abstracts in PubMed, corrected with the data from previously published paper, and completed with the Macedonian biomedical scientists working in countries outside the Republic of Macedonia, but born or previously worked in the country. iCite was used as a tool to access a dashboard of bibliometrics for papers associated with a portfolio. RESULTS: The biggest number of top twenty Macedonian biomedical scientists has RCR lower than one. Only four Macedonian biomedical scientists have bigger RCR in comparison with those in PubMed. The most prominent RCR of 2.29 has Rosoklija G. RCR of the most influenced individual papers deposited in PubMed has shown the biggest value for the paper of Efremov D (35.19). This paper has the biggest number of authors (860). CONCLUSION: It is necessary to accept top twenty Macedonian biomedical scientists as an example of new metric that uses citation rates to measure influence at the article level, rather than qualification of the best Macedonian biomedical scientists.