RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The process surrounding application to the national residency matching program changed drastically because of COVID. Virtual interviews, pre-interview Zoom socials, and limitations on sub-internships are major changes that applicants worldwide have had to overcome. The available literature does not reflect the impact of major changes to the interview process. Here, we examine the neurosurgery resident cohort from 2021-2023 to investigate differences between United States medical schools pre- and post-COVID. METHODS: A database was constructed reporting the number of students matched to neurosurgery for U.S. medical schools (M.D. and D.O.) from 2021-2023. Percentage of total graduates matched to neurosurgery was calculated and institutions were ranked by this metric. This rank was compared to a rank reported in 2021. Variables were compared across the pre- and post-COVID cohorts. RESULTS: Case Western, Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, Vanderbilt, University of Illinois, and University of California San Francisco produced the most neurosurgical residents as a percentage of total graduates. There was a statistically significant difference in the post-COVID cohort between medical schools with a home program versus those without. For the top 20 ranked U.S. News and World Report medical schools, there was a statistically insignificant increase in the number of graduates matched to neurosurgery. CONCLUSIONS: With the data provided, there have not been many significant changes in which medical schools produce the most neurosurgery residents since COVID changes were implemented. The playing field has remained relatively stable in the setting of major changes.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: A major critique of the h-index is that it may be inflated by noncritical authorship. We propose a modified h-index (hm), incorporating critical authorship, complementary to the h-index. We analyze its relationship to the traditional h-index, and how each varies across professional categories relevant to academic neurosurgery. This analysis is not meant to critique authorship decisions, affect career development, alter academic legacy, or imply that the concepts of team science or midlevel authorship contributions are not valuable. METHODS: H-indices and hms were gathered and computed for clinical neurosurgical faculty at the top 32 ranked academic neurosurgical programs based on the current literature. Hm was computed for faculty at each program, using articles in which the individual was first, second, last, or co-corresponding author. Individuals were further identified based on chair status, leadership status, neurosurgical subspecialty, and National Institutes of Health funding status. Further analysis was performed to determine factors influencing h-index and hm. RESULTS: The median h-index for the 225 physicians included in the final dataset is 48 (interquartile range [IQR], 39-61), whereas the median hm was 32 (IQR, 24-43). The median difference between h-index and hm is 15 (IQR, 10-23). The median hm/h was 64% (IQR, 57-74). National Institutes of Health funding and subspecialty (neurosurgical oncology, neurocritical care, and cerebrovascular) were associated with significant change from h to hm. CONCLUSIONS: The h-index can be influenced by noncritical authorship, and hm, using critical contributions, can be used as a complement reflecting critical academic output in neurosurgery. Leaders deciding on hiring or promotion should consider disparities in productivity predicated on noncritical authorship contributions.
