The Rich Get Richer: The Matthew Effect in Open Payments.

INTRODUCTION: The Matthew Effect refers to a pattern of accumulated advantage, specifically how social status can lead to increased wealth and recognition. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act of the Affordable Care Act requires industry payments and the affiliated hospital to be publicly available through the Open Payments Database (OPD). The US News and World Report (USNWR) publishes a ranking of best medical school (research) programs yearly. The Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research (BRIMR) ranks medical schools annually by the amount of funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Whether medical school-affiliated hospitals with higher social ranking and more NIH funding receive more industrial support is unknown. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between open payment of medical school-affiliated hospitals and USNWR and BRIMR ranking. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the OPD for the fiscal year of 2021. Hospital industry payment information was collected for affiliated hospitals in general and research categories. NIH funding data and program rankings were collected from BRIMR and USNWR, respectively. All data were collected for the fiscal year of 2021. The open payments of schools ranked in the top 50 for USNWR (n = 50) and BRIMR (n = 49) were compared to the schools not ranked in the top 50 using SPSS with chi-squared and Mann-Whitney U tests. A multivariate linear regression was performed to evaluate the association between open payments, USNWR ranking, and BRIMR ranking. RESULTS: A total of 91 medical schools were included in this study. The top 50 ranked medical schools by BRIMR were found to have a higher median of total open payment ($5,652,628 versus $2,558,372, P < 0.001), open payment in research ($4,707,297 versus $1,992,597, P = 0.003), and general open payment ($1,083,018 versus $392,045, P < 0.001). When ranked by USNWR, the top 50 ranked medical schools were found similarly to have a higher median of total open payment (P < 0.001), open payment in research (P < 0.001), and general open payment (P < 0.001). USNWR ranking was an independent predictor of more total open payment (Coefficient 0.016, 95% confidence interval 0.002-0.029, P = 0.026) and research open payment (coefficient 0.018, 95% confidence interval 0.002-0.034, P = 0.028). USNWR ranking was not found to predict general open payments. BRIMR ranking was not associated with open payment in total, research, or general. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital open payments were associated with the social reputation of their medical schools. NIH funding was not associated with open payments. A Matthew effect exists in current industry payments to medical school-affiliated hospitals.

Dispersion of National Institute of Health Funding to Departments of Surgery Is Contracting.

INTRODUCTION: NIH funding to departments of surgery reported as benchmark Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research (BRIMR) rankings are unclear. METHODS: We analyzed inflation-adjusted BRIMR-reported NIH funding to departments of surgery and medicine between 2011 and 2021. RESULTS: NIH funding to departments of surgery and medicine both increased 40% from 2011 to 2021 ($325 million to $454 million; $3.8 billion to $5.3 billion, P < 0.001 for both). The number of BRIMR-ranked departments of surgery decreased 14% during this period while departments of medicine increased 5% (88 to 76 versus 111 to 116; P < 0.001). There was a greater increase in the total number of medicine PIs versus surgery PIs during this period (4377 to 5224 versus 557 to 649; P < 0.001). These trends translated to further concentration of NIH-funded PIs in medicine versus surgery departments (45 PIs/program versus 8.5 PIs/program; P < 0.001). NIH funding and PIs/program in 2021 were respectively 32 and 20 times greater for the top versus lowest 15 BRIMR-ranked surgery departments ($244 million versus $7.5 million [P < 0.01]; 20.5 versus 1.3 [P < 0.001]). Twelve (80%) of the top 15 surgery departments maintained this ranking over the 10-year study period. CONCLUSIONS: Although NIH funding to departments of surgery and medicine is growing at a similar rate, departments of medicine and top-funded surgery departments have greater funding and concentration of PIs/program versus surgery departments overall and lowest-funded surgery departments. Strategies used by top-performing departments to obtain and maintain funding may assist less well-funded departments in obtaining extramural research funding, thus broadening the access of surgeon-scientists to perform NIH-supported research.

Program Website Evaluation Regarding Dedicated Research Years Offered in General Surgery Residency Programs in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Research is a vital component in the advancements of surgical sciences due to the reliance of treatment options on innovations and outcomes of patient care. This study aimed to identify research pathways, opportunities, and academic productivities of different general surgery residency programs in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based review was conducted concerning accredited US general surgery residency programs. Each program's official website was assessed for the availability of research year, compulsory status, duration, type, structure, and location. The study also identified faculty supervision, research day, funding, output, and opportunities to obtain an advanced degree. RESULTS: Data were collected from all 313 general surgery programs in the United States, out of which 127 (41%) offered a dedicated research year to their residents. The research year was deemed mandatory in 27 programs (8%) and optional in 100 programs (32%). Seventy-two programs (23%) offered to start the dedicated research year after postgraduate year 2 or postgraduate year 3. Twenty-two programs (7.02%) provided examples of resident publications and presentations. Resident research day was cited by 42 programs (13.41%). On campus research opportunity was mentioned by nine programs (2.8%), while the off campus chance was provided by 10 programs (3.19%). Furthermore, 36 programs (11.5%) demonstrated potential funding sources. Finally, 38 (12.14%) programs mentioned receiving advanced degrees after the research year. CONCLUSIONS: Although dedicated research time is provided to trainees for some research programs, there is a lack of structure and the need to expand the available content and information regarding research opportunities for the various general surgery residency programs.

Preserving the Pipeline of Surgeon Scientists: The Role of a Structured Research Curriculum.

INTRODUCTION: With shrinking National Institute of Health support, increased clinical demands, and less time for research training during residency, the future of surgeon scientists is in jeopardy. We evaluate the role of a structured research curriculum and its association with resident academic productivity. METHODS: Categorical general surgery residents who matched between 2005 and 2019 at our institution were analyzed (n = 104). An optional structured research curriculum, including a mentor program, grant application support, didactic seminars, and travel funding was implemented in 2016. Academic productivity, including the number of publications and citations, was compared between residents who started in or after 2016 (postimplementation, n = 33) and those before 2016 (preimplementation, n = 71). Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U test, multivariable logistic regression, and inverse probability treatment weighting were performed. RESULTS: The postimplementation group had more female (57.6% versus 31.0%, P = 0.010), and nonwhite (36.4% versus 5.6%, P < 0.001) residents and had more publications and citations at the start of residency (P < 0.001). Postimplementation residents were more likely to choose academic development time (ADT) (66.7% versus 23.9%, P < 0.001) and had higher median (IQR) number of publications (2.0 (1.0-12.5) versus 1.0 (0-5.0), P = 0.028) during residency. After adjusting the number of publications at the start of residency, multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the postimplementation group was five times more likely to choose ADT (95% CI 1.7-14.7, P = 0.04). Further, inverse probability treatment weighting revealed an increase of 0.34 publications per year after implementing the structured research curriculum among residents who chose ADT (95% CI 0.1-0.9, P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: A structured research curriculum was associated with increased academic productivity and surgical resident participation in dedicated ADT. A structured research curriculum is effective and should be integrated into residency training to support the next generation of academic surgeons.

A 22-year analysis of the Society for Vascular Surgery Foundation Mentored Research Career Development Award in fostering vascular surgeon-scientists.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular surgeon-scientists shape the future of our specialty through rigorous scientific investigation and innovation in clinical care and by training the next generation of surgeon-scientists. The Society for Vascular Surgery Foundation (SVSF) supports the development of surgeon-scientists through the Mentored Research Career Development Award (SVSF-CDA) program, providing supplemental funds to recipients of National Institutes of Health (NIH) K08/K23 grants. We evaluated the ongoing success of this mission. METHODS: The curriculum vitae of the 41 recipients of the SVSF supplemental funding from 1999 to 2021 were collected and reviewed to evaluate the academic achievements, define the programmatic accomplishments and return on investment, and identify areas for strategic improvement. RESULTS: For nearly 22 years, the SVSF has awarded supplemental funds for 31 K08 and 10 K23 grants to SVS members from 32 institutions. Of the 41 awardees, 34 have completed their K-funding and 7 are still being supported. Eleven awardees (27%) were women, including six of the current awardees (75%). However, only slight ethnic/racial diversity was found in the program. The awardees had obtained K-funding ∼4 years after becoming faculty. Eleven awardees (27%) were supported by Howard Hughes, NIH F32, or NIH T32 grants during training. To date, the SVSF has committed $12 million to the SVSF-CDA program. Among the 34 who have completed their K-funding, 21 (62%) successfully obtained NIH R01, Veterans Affairs, or Department of Defense funding. The awardees have secured >$114 million in federal funding, representing a 9.5-fold financial return on investment for the SVSF. In addition to research endeavors, 11 awardees (27%) hold endowed professorships and 19 (46%) have secured tenure at their institution. Many of the awardees hold or have held leadership positions, including 18 division chiefs (44%), 11 program directors (27%), 5 chairs of departments of surgery (12%), and 1 dean (2%). Eleven (27%) have served as president of a regional or national society, and 24 (59%) participate in NIH study sections. Of the 34 who have completed their K-funding, 15 (44%) have continued to maintain active independent research funding. CONCLUSIONS: The SVSF-CDA program is highly effective in the development of vascular surgeon-scientists who contribute to the leadership and growth of academic vascular surgery with a 9.5-fold return on investment. The number of female awardees has increased in recent years but ethnic/racial diversity has remained poor. Although 62% successfully transitioned to federal funding, fewer than one half have remained funded over time. Retention in research and increasing diversity for the awardees are major concerns and important areas of strategic focus for the SVSF.

Pearls and Pitfalls for Surgical Investigators in Basic and Translational Research.

Surgeon-scientists are uniquely positioned to contribute to our understanding of the fundamental biology of surgical disease and to bring a unique perspective that leads to innovation in the diagnosis and treatment of many conditions. However, it is broadly recognized that due to the changing landscape of surgery and science, the surgeon-scientists of today face multiple challenges in this pursuit. Today, surgeon-scientists face an increased pressure from their department and hospital to generate clinical revenue, decreased availability of grant funding, greater administrative burden, rising complexity of fundamental research, increased medical school debt, and a growing desire for work-life balance. Given that survival of surgeon-scientists is critical for the progress of not only surgery but medical innovation at large, many surgical societies, notably the Association for Academic Surgery (AAS) and the Society of University Surgeons (SUS) have focused on the issues faced by surgeon-scientists. In this regard, the Basic and Translational Research Committee of the AAS and the Research Committee of the SUS organized a hot topic session at the 2021 Academic Surgical Congress in which experts discussed and addressed many issues concerning the surgeon-scientist pathway. This manuscript provides an overview of the issues discussed at this session.

How to Support a Surgeon Scientist: Lessons from National Institutes of Health K-Award Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Success in academic surgery is challenging and research cannot survive without funding. NIH K-awards are designed to mentor junior investigators to achieve independence. As a result we aimed to study K awardees in departments of surgery and learn from their experience. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Utilizing the NIH RePORTer database and filtering by department of surgery, clinically active surgeons receiving a K-award between 2008 and 2018 were asked to complete an online survey. Qualitative data from two open-ended questions were coded independently using standard qualitative methods by three researchers. Using grounded theory, major themes emerged from the codes. RESULTS: Of the 144 academic surgeons identified, 89 (62%) completed the survey. The average age was 39 ± 3 when the K-award was granted. Most identified as white (69%). Men (70%) were more likely to be married (P = 0.02) and have children (P = 0.05). To identify intention to pursue R01 funding, surgeons having a K-award for 5 y or more were analyzed (n = 45). Most either intended to (11%) or had already applied (80%) of which 36% were successful. Men were more likely to apply (P = 0.05). Major themes to succeed include protected time, mentorship, and support from leadership. Common barriers to overcome include balancing time, pressures to be clinically productive, and funding. CONCLUSIONS: The demographics and career trajectory of NIH K-awarded surgeons is described. The lack of underrepresented minorities receiving grants is concerning. Most recipients required more than one application attempt and plan to or have applied for R01 funding. The major themes were very similar; a supportive environment and time available for research are the most crucial factors to succeed as an academic surgeon.

Setting Up for Success: Strategies to Foster Surgeons' Pursuit of Basic Science Research.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons make important contributions to basic science research and are in a unique position to innovate scientifically. The number of surgeons pursuing basic science research has been declining over the past two decades. We sought to describe perceived barriers to surgeons' pursuit of basic science research and identify interventions that mitigate these obstacles. MATERIALS & METHODS: An online survey was sent to chairs of academic surgery departments and practicing surgeons involved in basic science research. A subset of these participants were interviewed about their experiences. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and uploaded to NVivo. Two coders developed a codebook using inductive content analysis to identify relevant themes. RESULTS: 97 people responded to the survey, 27 (29%) were department chairs. Major barriers to basic science research for all respondents were lack of funding, clinical duties and lack of dedicated time for research. Nine surgeons and three departmental chairs were subsequently interviewed. The importance of having clear research goals and timetables with specific plans for attaining funding were mentioned by all. Chairs described the usefulness of embedding early surgeon scientists in their scientific mentors' labs in a post-doctoral model. Additionally, departmental leaders must actively work to protect surgeon scientists from encroaching clinical and administrative demands. CONCLUSIONS: While barriers to surgeons' pursuit of basic science research exist, the surgeon scientist is a phenotype that can be fostered with the dedication and commitment of surgeons to continue to pursue science research and active support of departmental leadership.

Navigating the Postgraduate Research Fellowship: A Roadmap for Surgical Residents.

BACKGROUND: To preserve the future of surgical innovation, opportunities for surgical residents to receive structured research training are paramount. The objective of this article is to help surgical residents navigate a research fellowship by overviewing key topics such as choosing an area of focus and supervisor, applying for external funding, transitioning away from clinical duties, managing intellectual property, integrating family planning, and incorporating research experience into independent career development. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the framework of the University of Toronto's graduate degree-awarding Surgeon-Scientist Training Program, the authors outline key considerations, decisions, and pearls for surgical residents considering or currently enrolled in a full-time research fellowship training program. RESULTS: Full-time research fellowships offer a unique opportunity for residents interested in an academic career. Such full-time research fellowships away from clinical duties allow surgical trainees to focus on developing key research competencies, including how to generate hypotheses, apply research methodology, gain experience presenting and publishing manuscripts, and ultimately apply these skills as independent investigators to improve patient and population health. Research fellowships may also be an opportunity to develop intellectual property or facilitate family planning. Practical tips are provided for the transition back into clinical training and how to effectively market one's research skills for career advancement. CONCLUSIONS: The authors outline key considerations, decisions, and pearls for surgical residents considering or currently enrolled in a full-time research fellowship training program. By adhering to the principles highlighted in this article, residents will be able to successfully navigate a full-time research fellowship to optimize their intellectual development, maximize their academic productivity, and facilitate their transition into an independent investigator.

From bedside to bench: an evaluation of expectations and challenges encountered by young surgeons facing basic science.

Background: The evolution of surgical practice may lead to increasing difficulties for surgeons to perform fundamental research. The aim of this study was to evaluate the expectations and the challenges encountered by young surgeons when starting basic science.Methods: A qualitative study was conducted in France. A written questionnaire was anonymously filled by the participants attending to the Master Degree in surgical science.Results: The study included 47 participants (median age: 28 years, 59.6% of men); 37 (78.7%) participants had applied for a grant for their salary and 32 (68.1%) had obtained it. Nine (19.1%) participants had planned to keep their usual clinical activity. The main motivations were the perspective to embark on an academic career (55.3%) and improvement of knowledge in science (38.3%). The main barriers encountered were the lack of time (70.2%), the lack of interest (27.7%), the lack of financial support (23.4%) and administrative difficulties (12.8%).Conclusion: This study identified main barriers that young surgeons have to face when getting involved in basic science underlining the need to improve institutional and financial support to ensure involvement of new generations of surgeons in surgical research.

Surgeon as Basic Bench Scientist: A Play in Three Acts.

There is an ongoing national narrative on the diminishing number of surgeons willing and able to carry out meaningful basic science research as academic surgeons. Various analyses have come to the conclusion that the pressure to be clinically productive has overshadowed individual aspirations to perform bench-level science as a practicing academic surgeon. This review challenges various aspects of this conclusion and offers a path forward to rethink our approach to basic science as performed by practicing surgeons in an academic environment.

The pediatric surgeon-scientist: An evolving Breed or endangered phenotype?

INTRODUCTION: National Institute of Health (NIH) funding is a "gold-standard" of achievement; we examined trends in NIH-funded pediatric surgeons. METHODS: NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) was queried for American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) members (2012 vs 2022). Demographics and time-to-award (TTA) from fellowship were compared. Number of grants, funding allotment, award classification, administering institutes/centers, research type were studied. RESULTS: Thirty-eight (4.6%) APSA members were NIH-funded in 2012 compared to 37 (2.9%) in 2022. Of funded surgeons in 2022, 27% were repeat awardees from 2012. TTA was similar (12 vs 14years, p=0.109). At each point, awards were commonly R01 grants (40 vs 52%, p â€‹= â€‹0.087) and basic science-related (76 vs 63%, p = â€‹0.179). Awardees were predominantly men (82% in 2012 vs 78% in 2022, p=0.779) and White (82% in 2012 vs 76% in 2022, p=0.586). Median amount per grant increased: $254,980 (2012) to $364,025 (2022); by $96,711 for men and $390,911 for women. Median awards for White surgeons increased by $215,699 (p=0.035), and decreased by $30,074 for non-White surgeons, though not significantly (p=0.368). CONCLUSION: The landscape of NIH-funded pediatric surgeons has remained unchanged between time points. With a substantial number of repeat awardees, predominance of R01 grants, and a median TTA over a decade after fellowship graduation, the phenotypes of early career pediatric surgeon-scientists are facing academic endangerment.

Federal and foundational research funding trends for cerebrovascular neurosurgeons: the decline of the cerebrovascular surgeon-scientist?

OBJECTIVE: The number of cerebrovascular (CV) surgeons has grown with the rise of endovascular neurosurgery. However, it is unclear whether the number of CV surgeon-scientists has concomitantly increased. With increasing numbers of CV neurosurgeons in the US workforce, the authors analyzed associated changes in National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation (NREF) funding trends for CV surgeons over time. METHODS: Publicly available data were collected on currently practicing academic CV surgeons in the US. Inflation-adjusted NIH funding between 2009 and 2021 was surveyed using NIH RePORTER and Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research data. The K12 Neurosurgeon Research Career Development Program and NREF grant data were queried for CV-focused grants. Pearson R correlation, chi-square analysis, and the Mann-Whitney U-test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2021, NIH funding increased: in total (p = 0.0318), to neurosurgeons (p < 0.0001), to CV research projects (p < 0.0001), and to CV surgeons (p = 0.0018). During this time period, there has been an increase in the total number of CV surgeons (p < 0.0001), the number of NIH-funded CV surgeons (p = 0.0034), and the percentage of CV surgeons with NIH funding (p = 0.370). Additionally, active NIH grant dollars per CV surgeon (p = 0.0398) and the number of NIH grants per CV surgeon (p = 0.4257) have increased. Nevertheless, CV surgeons have been awarded a decreasing proportion of the overall pool of neurosurgeon-awarded NIH grants during this time period (p = 0.3095). In addition, there has been a significant decrease in the number of K08, K12, and K23 career development awards granted to CV surgeons during this time period (p = 0.0024). There was also a significant decline in the proportion of K12 (p = 0.0044) and downtrend in early-career NREF (p = 0.8978) grant applications and grants awarded during this time period. Finally, NIH-funded CV surgeons were more likely to have completed residency less recently (p = 0.001) and less likely to have completed an endovascular fellowship (p = 0.044) as compared with non-NIH-funded CV surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: The number of CV surgeons is increasing over time. While there has been a concomitant increase in the number of NIH-funded CV surgeons and the number of NIH grants awarded per CV surgeon in the past 12 years, there has also been a significant decrease in CV surgeons with K08, K12, and K23 career development awards and a downtrend in CV-focused K12 and early-career NREF applications and awarded grants. The latter findings suggest that the pipeline for future NIH-funded CV surgeons may be in decline.

Submitting a successful National Institutes of Health career development award for the vascular surgeon scientist.

Obtaining a career development award from the National Institutes of Health (K award) is often an important step in establishing a career as a vascular surgeon scientist. The application and review process is competitive, involves many steps, and may be confusing to the prospective applicant. Further, there are requirements involving mentors and the applicant's institution. This article, authored completely by vascular surgeons with active K awards, is intended for potential applicants and personnel at their institution and reviews relevant information including strategies for a successful application.

The pediatric surgeon's road to research independence: utility of mentor-based National Institutes of Health grants.

BACKGROUND: The current research environment for academic surgeons demands that extramural funding be obtained. Financial support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is historically the gold standard for funding in the biomedical research community, with the R01 funding mechanism viewed as indicator of research independence. The NIH also supports a mentor-based career development mechanism (K-series awards) in order to support early-stage investigators. The goal of this study was to investigate the grants successfully awarded to pediatric surgeon-scientists and then determine the success of the K-series award recipients at achieving research independence. METHODS: In July 2012, all current members of the American Pediatric Surgery Association (APSA) were queried in the NIH database from 1988-2012 through the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools. The following factors were analyzed: type of grant, institution, amount of funding, and funding institute or center. RESULTS: Among current APSA members, there have been 83 independent investigators receiving grants, representing 13% of the current APSA membership, with 171 independent grants funded through various mechanisms. Six percent currently have active NIH funding, with $7.2 million distributed in 2012. There have been 28 K-series grants awarded. Of the recipients of expired K08 awards, 39% recipients were subsequently awarded an R01 grant. A total of 63% of these K-awarded investigators transitioned to an independent NIH award mechanism. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric surgeon-scientists successfully compete for NIH funding. Our data suggest that although the K-series funding mechanism is not the only path to research independence, over half of the pediatric surgeons who receive a K-award are successful in the transition to independent investigator.

Endocrine surgery and the surgeon-scientist: Bridging the gap between a rich history and a bright future.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluate National Institutes of Health (NIH) data to describe endocrine surgical research performed by surgeons in the United States. METHODS: An internal NIH database was queried for endocrine surgery-related grants awarded to surgeons in 2010, 2015, and 2020. The grants were then compared based on cost, grant type, research type, and endocrine topic. RESULTS: Eighteen grants ($6.4 M) focused on endocrine surgery-related research topics were identified in 2020, 17 ($7.3 M) in 2015, and 11 ($3.8 M) in 2010. In 2020, 14 grants were basic science and 4 were clinical outcomes, and pancreatic endocrine disease and thyroid disease each comprised 6 grants. R01 and R21 grants comprised 10 (55.6%) of the grants in 2020, compared to 10 (58.5%) in 2015 and 8 (72.7%) in 2010, while K08 and K23 grants increased to 4 (22.2%) in 2020 from 2 (11.8%) in 2015 and none in 2010. CONCLUSION: There were more K-awards focused on endocrine surgery-related research in 2020 compared to 2015 and 2010, suggesting the pipeline is growing.

Quantitative goals for research output and scholarly impact to enhance basic science R01 grant renewal for cardiothoracic surgeons.

Objectives: Cardiothoracic (CT) surgeons with National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 funding face a highly competitive renewal process. The factors that contribute to successful grant renewal for CT surgeons remain poorly defined. We hypothesized that renewed basic science grants are associated with high research output and scholarly impact during the preceding award cycle. Methods: Using a database of academic CT surgeons (n = 992) at accredited training institutions in 2018, we identified basic science R01 grants awarded to CT surgeon principal investigators since 1985. Data for each award were obtained from publicly available online sources. Scholarly impact was evaluated using the NIH-validated relative citation ratio (RCR), defined as an article's citation rate divided by that of R01-funded publications in the same field. Continuous data are presented as medians and analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test. Results: We identified 102 basic science R01 award cycles, including 33 that were renewed (32.4%). Renewed and nonrenewed awards had a similar start year and funding period. Principal investigators of renewed versus nonrenewed awards were similar in surgical subspecialty, research training, attending experience, academic rank, and previous NIH funding. Renewed awards produced more publications per year over the funding cycle (3.4 vs 1.5; P = .0010) and exhibited a greater median RCR during the funding cycle (0.84 vs 0.66; P = .0183). Conclusions: CT surgery basic science R01 grants are associated with high research output and scholarly impact. At the 50th percentile among renewed grants, CT surgeons published 3.4 funded manuscripts per year with a median RCR of 0.84 during the previous award cycle.

Ethical considerations of academic surgical research.

Ethical considerations surrounding clinical research have been a topic of intense debate and discussion for many years, however, issues specific to the surgeon-scientist are rarely discussed. This article summarizes ethical issues pertinent to the surgeon-scientist including conflicts of interest, use of human biospecimens, data integrity, manuscript authorship, and mentorship for trainees. The methods include a review of the current and past literature on each of these topics with a brief overview of how it relates to the surgeon-scientist. Case examples are provided throughout to provide further discussion points related to the topic. The purpose of this review is to promote awareness of the ethical challenges that the surgeon-scientist faces when engaging in basic science research in order to spark discussion and encourage integrity and ethical behavior.

Significance of research in a surgeon-scientist's career - A view from Japan.

Reflections of academic pediatric surgery in Japan are shared by the authors. As in most areas of surgical practice committement and life long dedication are emphasized as the key(s) to success. An enquiring mind is always an advantage.