Is there a relationship between National Institutes of Health funding and research impact on academic urology?

PURPOSE: Scholarly productivity in the form of research contributions is important for appointment and promotion in academic urology. Some believe that this production may require significant funding. We evaluated the relationship between National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, academic rank and research productivity, as measured by the h-index, an objective indicator of research impact on a field. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 361 faculty members from the top 20 NIH funded academic urology departments were examined for research productivity, as measured by the h-index and calculated from the Scopus database (http://www.info.sciverse.com/scopus). Research productivity was compared to individual funding totals, the terminal degree and academic rank. RESULTS: NIH funded faculty members had statistically higher research productivity than nonfunded colleagues. Research productivity increased with increasing NIH funding. Departmental NIH funding correlated poorly with the mean department h-index. Successive academic rank was associated with increasing research productivity. Full professors had higher NIH funding awards than their junior NIH funded colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: There is an association among the h-index, NIH funding and academic rank. The h-index is a reliable method of assessing the impact of scholarly contributions toward the discourse in academic urology. It may be used as an adjunct for evaluating the scholarly productivity of academic urologists.

Expert witness testimony in urology malpractice litigation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the credentials of urologists choosing to testify as expert witnesses. As health care reform has become an increasingly important topic in national debate, medical malpractice and related issues have come to the forefront of topics for discussion by the medical community. Physicians are often recruited to testify as expert witnesses in malpractice cases. Defining what constitutes an expert in this setting has been an area of controversy. METHODS: The Westlaw legal database was searched for medical malpractice litigation. Data regarding number of years of experience and practice setting were obtained for urologists using private practice and hospital listings, academic faculty profiles, and state medical licensing databases. Scholarly impact, as measured by the h-index, was calculated by the Scopus database. RESULTS: Plaintiff expert witnesses were found to have slightly more years of experience vs defendant expert witnesses (35.7 vs 32.2 years, P = .01), but had a lower h-index (6.8 vs 10.2, P = .03), were less likely to practice in the academic setting (39% vs 60%, P = .001), and were more likely to testify multiple times. CONCLUSION: Urologists testifying for plaintiffs and defendants both had over 30 years of experience on average, with those in the latter having slightly less experience. Defendant witnesses, however, had greater scholarly impact and were more likely to practice in an academic setting. Organizations such as the American Urological Association may wish to re-evaluate guidelines on expert witness testimony, particularly regarding those who testify frequently.

Factors influencing scholarly impact: does urology fellowship training affect research output?

PURPOSE: Residents seek postresidency fellowship training to increase competency with novel surgical techniques and augment their fund of knowledge. Research productivity is a vital component of advancement in academic urology. Our objectives were to use the h-index (an objective and readily available bibliometric that has been repeatedly shown to correlate with scholarly impact, funding procurement, and academic promotion in urology as well as other specialties) to determine whether any relationship exists between fellowship training and scholarly impact among academic urologists. Additional examination was performed to determine whether any differences in scholarly influence are present among practitioners in the major urologic subspecialties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall, 851 faculty members from 101 academic urology departments were organized by academic rank and fellowship completed. Research productivity was calculated using the h-index, calculated from the Scopus database. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in h-index found between fellowship-trained and nonfellowship-trained academic urologists. The highest h-indices were seen among urologic oncologists (18.1 ± 0.95) and nonfellowship-trained urologists (14.62 ± 0.80). Nearly 70% of department chairs included in this analysis were urologic oncologists or general urologists. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in h-index existed between fellowship-trained and nonfellowship-trained urologists, although practitioners in the subspecialty cohorts with the highest research productivity (nonfellowship-trained and urologic oncologists) comprised 70% of department chairpersons. This relationship suggests that a strong research profile is highly valued during selection for academic promotion. Differences existed on further comparison by subspecialty. Fellowship training may represent another potential opportunity to introduce structured research experiences for trainees.