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.

Fellowships Represent a Logical Target for Cultivating Research in Academic Anesthesiology.

Background: The need for greater emphasis on research contributions in academic anesthesiology has been widely recognized in recent years. Some propose increasing integration of research, including dedicated research time, into ACGME requirements for residency and fellowship training experiences. The h-index, an effective measure of research productivity that takes into account relevance and impact of an author's contributions on discourse within a field, was used to examine whether there are differences in research productivity between non-fellowship and fellowship-trained faculty in academic anesthesiology departments. This bibliometric was further used to examine differences in subspecialties, and other specialties of medicine. Methods: Research productivity, as measured by the h-index, was examined using the Scopus database for 508 academic Anesthesiologists practicing in the various subspecialties. Results: There was no statistical difference in research productivity, as measured by the h-index, between non-fellowship and fellowship-trained academic anesthesiologists (2.98+-0.32 vs. 2.88+-0.31). Critical care anesthesiologists had the highest h-indices (5.78+-1.11), while regional anesthesia and pain medicine practitioners had the lowest values (1.18+-0.32). Unlike in anesthesiology, a sample of physicians from other specialties revealed a statistical difference in h-index between non-fellowship and fellowship-trained physicians. Conclusions: Scholarly productivity, as measured by the h-index was similar for fellowship and non-fellowship trained anesthesiologists.

Impact of mentoring medical students on scholarly productivity.

BACKGROUND: Our objectives were to evaluate collaboration with medical students and other nondoctoral authors, and assess whether mentoring such students influences the academic productivity of senior authors. METHODS: Six issues of the Laryngoscope and International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology (IFAR) were examined for the corresponding author of each manuscript, and whether any students were involved in authorship. The h-index of all corresponding authors was calculated using the Scopus database to compare the scholarly impact of authors collaborating with students and those collaborating exclusively with other physicians or doctoral-level researchers. RESULTS: Of 261 Laryngoscope manuscripts, 71.6% had exclusively physician or doctoral-level authors, 9.2% had "students" (nondoctoral-level authors) as first authors, and another 19.2% involved "student" authors. Corresponding values for IFAR manuscripts were 57.1%, 6.3%, and 36.5%. Corresponding authors who collaborated with students had higher scholarly impact, as measured by the h-index, than those collaborating exclusively with physicians and doctoral-level scientists in both journals. CONCLUSION: Collaboration with individuals who do not have doctoral-level degrees, presumably medical students, has a strong association with scholarly impact among researchers publishing in the Laryngoscope and IFAR. Research mentorship of medical students interested in otolaryngology may allow a physician-scientist to evaluate the students' effectiveness and functioning in a team setting, a critical component of success in residency training, and may have beneficial effects on research productivity for the senior author.

Regional differences in gender promotion and scholarly productivity in otolaryngology.

OBJECTIVES: To identify whether regional differences exist in gender disparities in scholarly productivity and faculty rank among academic otolaryngologists. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Academic otolaryngologists' bibliometric data analyses. METHODS: Online faculty listings from 98 otolaryngology departments were organized by gender, academic rank, fellowship training status, and institutional location. The Scopus database was used to assess bibliometrics of these otolaryngologists, including the h-index, number of publications, and publication experience. RESULTS: Analysis included 1127 otolaryngologists, 916 men (81.3%) and 211 women (18.7%). Female faculty comprised 15.4% in the Midwest, 18.8% in the Northeast, 21.3% in the South, and 19.0% in the West (P = .44). Overall, men obtained significantly higher senior academic ranks (associate professor or professor) compared to women (59.8% vs. 40.2%, P < .0001). Regional gender differences in senior faculty were found in the South (59.8% men vs. 37.3% women, P = .0003) and Northeast (56.4% men vs. 24.1% women, P < .0001) with concomitant gender differences in scholarly impact, as measured by the h-index (South, P = .0003; Northeast, P = .0001). Among geographic subdivisions, female representation at senior ranks was lowest in the Mid-Atlantic (22.0%), New England (30.8%), and West South Central (33.3%), while highest in Pacific (60.0%) and Mountain (71.4%) regions. No regional gender differences were found in fellowship training patterns (P-values > .05). CONCLUSION: Gender disparities in academic rank and scholarly productivity exist most notably in the Northeast, where women in otolaryngology are most underrepresented relative to men at senior academic ranks and in scholarly productivity.

Is NIH funding predictive of greater research productivity and impact among academic otolaryngologists?

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The h-index is an accurate and reliable indicator of scholarly productivity that takes into account relevance, significance, and influence of research contributions. As such, it is an effective, objective bibliometric that can be used to evaluate academic otolaryngologists for decisions regarding appointment and advancement. In this study, we evaluate the impact of NIH funding on scholarly productivity in otolaryngology. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of bibliometric data of academic otolaryngologists. METHODS: Funding data for the 20 otolaryngology departments with the largest aggregate total of NIH grants for the fiscal years (FY) 2011 and 2012 was obtained using the National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports (RePORTER) Database. H-indices were calculated using the Scopus online database, and then compared to funding data at both the departmental and individual level. RESULTS: Faculty members in otolaryngology departments who received NIH funding had significantly greater research productivity and impact, as measured by the h-index, than their nonfunded peers. H-indices increased with greater NIH funding levels, and investigators with MD degrees tended to have higher mean NIH funding levels than those with PhDs. While there was no correlation between average h-index and NIH funding totals at the level of departments, there was greater correlation upon examination of NIH funding levels of individual investigators. CONCLUSIONS: The h-index has a strong relationship with, and may be predictive of, grant awards of NIH-funded faculty members in otolaryngology departments. This bibliometric may be useful in decisions regarding appointment and advancement of faculty members within academic otolaryngology departments.

Gender disparities in scholarly productivity within academic otolaryngology departments.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether there are gender disparities in scholarly productivity within academic otolaryngology departments, as measured by academic rank and the h-index, a published, objective measure of research contributions that quantifies the number and significance of papers published by a given author. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of bibliometric data of academic otolaryngologists. METHODS: Faculty listings from academic otolaryngology departments were used to determine academic rank and gender. The Scopus database was used to determine h-index and publication range (in years) of these faculty members. In addition, 20 randomly chosen institutions were used to compare academic otolaryngologists to faculty members in other surgical specialties. RESULTS: Mean h-indices increased through the rank of professor. Among academic otolaryngologists, men had significantly higher h-indices than women, a finding also noted on examination of faculty members from other specialties. Men had higher research productivity rates at earlier points in their career than women did. The productivity rates of women increased and equaled or surpassed those of men later in their careers. Men had higher absolute h-index values at junior academic ranks. Women academic otolaryngologists of senior rank had higher absolute h-indices than their male counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: The h-index measures research significance in an objective manner and indicates that although men have higher overall research productivity in academic otolaryngology, women demonstrate a different productivity curve. Women produce less research output earlier in their careers than men do, but at senior levels, they equal or exceed the research productivity of men.

Gender disparities in research productivity among 9952 academic physicians.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The number of women in medicine has increased considerably over the past 3 decades, and they now comprise approximately half of medical school matriculants. We examine whether gender disparities in research productivity are present throughout various specialties and compare these findings to those previously described among otolaryngologists. STUDY DESIGN: Bibliometric analysis. METHODS: Research productivity, measured by the h-index, was calculated for 9,952 academic physicians representing 34 medical specialties. Additionally, trends in how rate of research productivity changed throughout different career stages were compared. RESULTS: Women were underrepresented at the level of professor and in positions of departmental leadership relative to their representation among assistant and associate professors. Male faculty had statistically higher research productivity both overall (H = 10.3 ± 0.14 vs. 5.6 ± 0.14) and at all academic ranks. For the overall sample, men and women appeared to have equivalent rates of research productivity. In internal medicine, men had higher early-career productivity, while female faculty had productivity equaling and even surpassing that of their male colleagues beyond 20 to 25 years. Men and women had equivalent productivity in surgical specialties throughout their careers, and similar rates in pediatrics until 25 to 30 years. CONCLUSIONS: Female academic physicians have decreased research productivity relative to men, which may be one factor contributing to their underrepresentation at the level of professor and departmental leader relative to their proportions in junior academic ranks. Potential explanations may include fewer woman physicians in the age groups during which higher academic ranks are attained, greater family responsibilities, and greater involvement in clinical service and educational contributions.

Regional disparities and practice patterns in surgical approaches to pituitary tumors in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Traditional microscopic and endoscopic transsphenoidal approaches (TSAs) are the most common surgical techniques in pituitary surgery. Examining regional practice patterns in pituitary surgery can provide valuable insights into which surgical strategies are most accessible, effective, and cost-efficient. In this study we investigated regional variations in surgical approaches to pituitary tumors and evaluated evolving practice patterns in pituitary surgery. METHODS: The 2010 Medicare Part B Carrier Summary Database and Medicare Part B National Summary Database from 2003-2010 were examined using pituitary surgery Current Procedure Terminology (CPT) codes 61548 (microscopic transsphenoidal approach), 62165 (endoscopic transsphenoidal approach), and 61546 (transcranial approach). RESULTS: Endoscopic TSAs increased by over 10-fold in the past decade, while usage of microscopic TSAs decreased by 23.3%. Nevertheless, the microscopic approach was still the most common TSA (64.7%) in 2010 compared to the endoscopic approach (35.3%). The microscopic TSA was predominant in the Southern and Western United States (74% and 69%, respectively). In the Northeast and Midwest, the rates of microscopic and endoscopic TSAs were roughly equivalent. However, the rate of endoscopic TSAs was statistically significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the Northeast and Midwest (47% and 45%, respectively) than in the South and West (26% and 31%, respectively). Transcranial approaches continued to decline from 4% to 2% over the last decade. CONCLUSION: Regional disparities in transsphenoidal practice patterns exist in the United States. Although the microscopic approach is still more common overall, there has been an evolving shift toward endoscopic TSAs in the last decade.

Impact of fellowship training on research productivity in academic otolaryngology.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Assessment of scholarly productivity as measured by research output is a key component of decisions regarding appointment and advancement in academic otolaryngology. An increasing number of graduating residents are pursuing postresidency fellowships, and evaluation of research productivity among these subspecialists is important in determining their role in academic otolaryngology departments. The h-index is a reliable indicator of research productivity, as it takes into account both quantity and relevance of research contributions. Our objective was to evaluate and compare trends in research productivity among the various otolaryngology subspecialties. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of research productivity trends among otolaryngology subspecialties using the h-index. METHODS: Faculty members from 92 academic otolaryngology departments were organized by subspecialty and academic rank, and their research productivity, as measured by the h-index, was calculated using the Scopus database. RESULTS: Fellowship-trained otolaryngologists in academic programs had higher h-indices than non-fellowship-trained otolaryngologists. Head and neck surgeons and otologists had significantly higher research productivity than their peers in other otolaryngology subspecialties. Analysis of the subspecialties of chairpersons indicated that 62% were either head and neck surgeons or otologists. CONCLUSIONS: Fellowship-trained otolaryngologists had higher h-indices, and faculty members trained in the subspecialties with the highest research productivity were disproportionately represented in positions of leadership within academic otolaryngology, probably reflecting the importance of research contributions in the academic advancement process, although other factors, such as educational contributions and clinical performance, may also be important factors.