Geographic Trends in General Surgery Resident Compensation Across the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of cost of living on general surgery resident salaries and identify factors associated with greater incomes and availability of housing stipends. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA), institutional websites, and Doximity. Program characteristics were compared through Kruskal-Wallis tests, ANOVA, and χ2 tests. Multivariable linear mixed modeling and multivariable logistic regression were utilized to determine factors associated with higher salary and availability of housing stipend, respectively. SETTING: Three-hundred fifty-one general surgery residency programs in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Three-hundred-seven general surgery residency programs with available salary data for the 2022 to 2023 academic year. RESULTS: The average postgraduate year 1 resident annual salary was $59,906.00 (standard deviation [SD] ± $5051.97). After adjustment for the cost of living, the average annual income surplus was $22,428.42 (SD ± $4848.64). Cost of living and resident remuneration varied substantially across regions (p < 0.001). Annual income surplus was the highest for programs in the Northeast when compared to other regions (p < 0.001). Resident annual income increased by $510 (95% confidence interval [CI] $430-$590) for each $1000 increase in the cost of living and $150 (95% CI $80-$210) for each 10-rank increase in Doximity general surgery program reputation ranking. An increased cost of living was associated with a higher likelihood of housing stipend availability (odds ratio 1.17, 95% CI 1.07-1.28). CONCLUSIONS: General surgery residents are inadequately compensated for the cost of living, indicating the potential for increased compensation to alleviate economic strain of surgical trainees. As financial stress can have implications for mental and physical well-being, further discussion of current resident salaries and benefits is warranted.

The Readability of Ophthalmological Patient Education Materials Provided by Major Academic Hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: The internet is an increasingly important resource for patients seeking health-related information. Because of this trend, the American Medical Association (AMA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommend that online patient education materials (PEMs) be written between a third and seventh grade level. The present study evaluates the readability levels of ophthalmological PEMs provided by five major academic hospitals, quantifies the availability of accompanying videos and graphics, and examines the extent to which readability may be increased. METHODS: In March 2021, 397 PEMs from five major academic hospitals were extracted for subsequent analysis by seven validated readability assessments. The presence of an accompanying video or graphic was noted. Statistical significance was assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's multiple comparisons test and the chi-square test. RESULTS: Nearly all articles were written above the recommended reading level of 7th grade. After averaging the scales for each article, the median grade level was 11.7 (interquartile range [IQR], 10.7-12.7). The PEMs with the highest median reading level were provided by the Johns Hopkins University Wilmer Institute (12.6, IQR, 11.3 - 13.6). Only 13.6% and 13.1% of articles had an accompanying video and graphic, respectively. Reduction of sentence length beneath 15 words resulted in an improvement of readability by 2.7 grade levels. CONCLUSIONS: The readability of online patient resources provided by major academic hospitals were above the literacy guidelines recommended by the NIH and AMA. Furthermore, most articles did not include a video or graphic, both of which could potentially improve patient understandability of educational materials. By altering these PEMs, as demonstrated here, institutions could increase the value these articles provide for patients and therefore the quality of the patient-physician relationship.

National Institutes of Health Funding Trends to Ophthalmology Departments at U.S. Medical Schools.

PURPOSE: To analyze trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in ophthalmology and characterize its distribution to departments and principal investigators (PIs) affiliated with U.S. medical schools. DESIGN: Longitudinal descriptive analysis. METHODS: We queried publically accessible data from the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research and NIH RePORTER to determine annual funding trends in ophthalmology from 2009 to 2020. To characterize the distribution of funding, we further ranked the top departments and principal investigators (PIs). Department websites (among other online resources) were utilized to extract characteristics of the latter cohort. RESULTS: After adjusting for inflation, we observed a modest 9% increase in median NIH funding to academic ophthalmology departments between 2009 and 2020. In the same time period, among individual PIs, this translated to a 9% decline in median funding. Our results among both departments and PIs indicated a persistent inequality in NIH funding. In 2020, 10 ophthalmology departments received 44% of total funding, which is consistent with findings from prior years. Our ranking of PIs by average annual NIH funding indicated a disproportionate representation of males (76%) and PhDs (58%) in the top 50. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results of this investigation suggest NIH funding remains limited for individual investigators, reflecting the increasingly competitive nature of the grant application process. Systemic alterations will be required to reverse these trends. If not accomplished, nascent and established researchers alike will continue to endure challenges in obtaining and maintaining funding.

Characteristics of the least-cited and most-cited articles in ophthalmology journals: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Limited research has examined differences between uncited papers and their most-cited counterparts. By comparing characteristics of each cohort, it is possible to better determine factors associated with increased citation count in the ophthalmology literature. METHODS: We initially identified all research articles published in six popular general ophthalmology journals (Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, American Journal of Ophthalmology, British Journal of Ophthalmology, and Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology) between 2001 and 2011. Forty-nine articles were identified as having accrued zero citations as of March 2021 and were compared with an equivalent number of articles with the highest number of citations published in the same journals and time period. Significance (p < 0.05) for comparisons was determined using the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Compared to the least-cited articles, the most-cited articles were significantly more likely to be clinical, multi-institutional, and multi-national in scope, report a statistically significant result, have a conflict of interest, state a funding source, and have higher sample sizes. These publications had significantly more words in the abstract and manuscript and more references. Overall, the first authors of the most-cited articles were significantly more likely to be female and report greater prior research productivity, as assessed by the relative citation ratio (RCR). CONCLUSION: Considering a small number of articles were uncited at least a decade after publication, it appears most research is useful for future investigations. However, there remain distinct differences between uncited articles and their most-cited equivalents in ophthalmology.

The relative citation ratio and the h-index among academic ophthalmologists: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Limited research has evaluated the relative citation ratio (RCR), a novel measure of research productivity. Accordingly, there remains a minimal understanding of its practical value relative to established metrics such as the h-index. Here, we examined correlations between the mean and weighted RCR scores and the h-index and explore the influence of academic rank, career duration, PhD acquisition, and fellowship training on these metrics. METHODS: Data regarding the academic rank (e.g. assistant professor, associate professor, professor, or "other"), career duration, degrees, fellowship training, and research yield were collected for 1018 academic ophthalmologists practicing in the southern United States of America. The iCite and Scopus databases were utilized to quantify research yield via calculations of mean and weighted RCR, and h-index, respectively. RESULTS: Significant correlations were observed between the h-index and the mean (ρ = 0.62, P < 0.001) and weighted RCR (ρ = 0.84, P < 0.001). Advanced academic rank was associated with increased indices values. In a subset of ophthalmologists excluding members of the "other" category, career duration was moderately correlated with h-index (ρ = 0.45, P < 0.001), and weakly correlated with mean (ρ = 0.14, P < 0.001) and weighted (ρ = 0.26, P < 0.001) RCR. PhD and fellowship acquisition were associated with increased research yield. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the RCR is an effective measure of research yield, while resolving deficiencies present in the h-index. Further research remains to characterize the RCR's value relative to other established markers of research productivity.