RESUMEN

Introduction: Spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH) is an important cause of devastating headaches and caused by CSF-leaks in the spine. Research question: The aim of this analysis was to gain an overview of the progress of research on SIH over time. The global publication landscape relating to SIH was analyzed and comparisons between regions were made. Material and methods: A bibliometric analysis was performed by searching for research articles on SIH in PubMed published between 1983 and 2022. Countries responsible for the publications were ranked by the sum of citations. An average annual growth rate was calculated and the density of SIH publications per 100 000 physicians was determined. Results: We identified 974 articles. In 1983 only one SIH patient was reported; in 2021 the number of patients had increased to 4230. The average annual growth rate of SIH publications during this period was 12.7%. The most common publication type were case reports (n = 570). The most common medical specialty of the first author was neurology (n = 251) followed by neurosurgery (n = 250) and radiology (n = 191). Although most publications originated from the United States of America (USA), South Korea had the highest density of SIH investigators (37.86 publications per 100 000 medical doctors). The most cited paper (296 citations) was published in 2006 in JAMA (USA). Discussion and conclusion: Research on SIH has increased exponentially over the past four decades. The international community of SIH researchers is growing, and with it the opportunities for global networks involved in research, treatment, and patient education.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Incorporating scientific research into undergraduate medical education is necessary for the quality of future health care. However, providing rigorous research training to a large number of medical students at one institution remains one of the major challenges. The authors studied the impact of a curriculum-based Research Training Program (RTP) for all undergraduate students at Zhejiang University School of Medicine (ZUSM) on research productivity and future research interests. METHODS: Medical students (n = 2,213) from ZUSM who completed the course of RTP between 2013 and 2020 were studied. The authors measured the academic performance, research publications, and research projects of students across years, and evaluated potential factors that contribute to student research productivity and increased interest in future research. RESULTS: Across the years, there was an increase in the number of student publications, a greater proportion of students with publications, and a greater proportion of projects involving three or more students (P < .01 for all). The academic performance of the course was associated with increased publications (P = .014), whereas overall satisfaction of the course (OR 2.07, 95% CI [1.39, 3.10], P < .001), Skill Composite Score (SCS) (OR 1.70, 95% CI [1.16, 2.50], P = .007), and male gender (OR 1.50, 95% CI [1.06, 2.12], P = .022) were associated with increased future research interests. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the curriculum-based RTP improved students' research productivity, and that overall program satisfaction and self-assessed performance were associated with increased students' intent to participate in future research.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between research activity and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding status of the United States (US) academic ophthalmologists. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of bibliometric data was conducted. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports (rePORTER) website was utilized to identify ophthalmology departments in the US that received NIH funding. Affiliated faculty from these institutions were then identified using NIH rePORTER and institutional websites. H-index was calculated using the Scopus database, and the NIH iCite tool was used to determine the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). The h-index and w-RCR quantified research productivity, while m-RCR measured research impact. RESULTS: Data on 2688 faculty members from 66 departments we re identified, of which 21% were NIH-funded. Faculty members who received NIH-funding had significantly greater research productivity and impact as measured by h-index (32.5 vs 16.6; p < .001), m-RCR (2.2 vs 1.6; p < .001), and w-RCR (147.2 vs 70.1; p < .001) than their non-funded peers. When stratified by academic rank, NIH-funded faculty still had significantly higher h-index (16.1 vs 7.9; p < .001), m-RCR (2.2 vs 1.4; p < .001), and w-RCR (63.2 vs 61.8; p < .001) than non-funded peers. A similar trend was observed among non-tenured faculty members. CONCLUSION: NIH funding is associated with higher research productivity and impact among US academic ophthalmologists as measured by h-index and RCR, which suggests that NIH funding may be a critical factor in enhancing scholarly contributions of ophthalmologists.  These findings underscore the importance of continued investment in NIH funding to foster high-impact research within the field of ophthalmology.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Mexico is under-represented in global neurosurgical research. High-income countries represent roughly 10% of the world's population but utilize about 90% of the research funding for medical research, highlighting the need for promoting research initiatives in low- and middle-income countries. We present an online-based research initiative in Mexico that aims to reduce the research gap in neurosurgery. METHODS: Implemented in early 2023, our online-based research initiative included weekly modules covering study types, statistical analysis, meta-analysis, and scientific writing. The first cohort of 22 students completed the 12-week program and then served as tutors for subsequent cohorts. The research model was promoted via word of mouth and social media platforms to medical students, graduates, and specialists across Latin America. Post-program, tutors and the author conducted weekly planning sessions to assist with project planning, analysis, and article writing. RESULTS: From 833 registrations, over 800 students completed at least 1 training module. The program published 7 articles and presented 12 abstracts at major international neurosurgical meetings. We performed a bibliographic analysis in PubMed and found that from 2021 to 2022, 33,637 neurosurgical articles were published, with 197 involving collaboration from Mexico (0.5%). From 2023 to 2024, 24,121 articles were published, with 205 involving collaboration from Mexico (0.8%), a significant increase (P < 0.001). Our collaboration contributed to 3.4% of these, representing a significant addition in 2023-2024 (P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: This online-based neurosurgical model contributed to 3.4% of the neurosurgical research productivity in Mexico. Our findings suggest that this model can effectively bridge the research gap and enhance scientific contributions in developing countries.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: As orthopedic surgery becomes increasingly competitive, orthopedic surgeons are now pursuing advanced degrees more frequently to enhance their resumes or gain additional expertise. The specific impact of this additional training and education on a surgeon's career trajectory is not well defined. The purpose of this study was to understand the impact of an advanced degree on the academic career of orthopedic shoulder and elbow surgeons. METHODS: Orthopedic shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons were identified using the directory listed on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons website. Demographics, education, and current professional roles were obtained. Research productivity was obtained using SCOPUS and Google Scholar. Advanced degrees were defined as those additional to the primary medical degree (Doctor of Medicine [MD] or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine [DO]). Outcome measures collected included timing of advanced degree obtainment, current academic and leadership roles, leadership on journal editorial boards, and research productivity. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U test to determine the association of advanced degrees on outcome measures. RESULTS: In total, 893 orthopedic shoulder and elbow surgeons were identified, of whom 129 had advanced degrees. Most common advanced degrees included Master of Science (MS/MSc; 43%), Master of Business Administration (MBA; 23%), and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD; 13%). The most common period of degree obtainment was before medical school (35%) with the least common times being after medical school/before residency (0.9%) and between residency and fellowship training (0.9%). Surgeons who held advanced degrees demonstrated greater research productivity, with a higher h-index (p < 0.001), a greater number of citations (p < 0.001), and more publications (p < 0.001). Of the 523 shoulder and elbow surgeons who worked at an academic institution, those holding advanced degrees were more likely to serve as orthopedic department chair (p < 0.001) and serve an editorial board position (< 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study found that having an advanced degree as an orthopedic shoulder and elbow surgeon was linked to higher research impact and productivity and an increased likelihood of becoming a department chair and holding an editorial position. These significant findings can help future trainees and department leadership in understanding the importance and impact of additional training on career trajectories for academic faculty.

RESUMEN

Background: Institutional academic productivity varies on an individual level. This study aims to analyze the research output of adult reconstruction and arthroplasty fellowship programs in the United States. Methods: The American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Fellowship Directory was used to evaluate 112 adult reconstruction and arthroplasty fellowships in the United States. Publication data and Hirsch index (h-index) were collected from the Scopus Database. All of each author's total publications were analyzed with their current institution, regardless of their affiliation at the time of publication. Multivariate logistic regressions were performed to determine the effect of program size on research productivity. Results: The total number of publications per institution ranged from 2 to 3743, with a mean of 289 and a median of 135. The h-index of individual faculty members ranged from 0 to 103, with a mean of 16 and a median of 11. The number of faculty (P < .001) and number of fellows (P = .003) per program had a significant effect on the total number of publications. The number of faculty did not have a significant effect on the median number of publications (P = .12) or the median h-index (P = .31). The number of fellows had a significant effect on the median number of publications (P < .001) and the median h-index (P < .001). Conclusions: Academic productivity in adult reconstruction and arthroplasty fellowships within the United States varies widely, with the top few institutions responsible for a majority of the overall output.

RESUMEN

Background: Existing literature overlooks the role of gender and race on research productivity, particularly in the context of primary care research. This study examines how gender and race influence the research productivity of primary care researchers in Canada, addressing a gap in existing literature. Methods: Qualitative, descriptive methods were used, involving 60-min interviews with 23 Canadian primary care researchers. 13 participants were female (57%) and 10 participants (43%) were male. Fourteen participants were White (non-racialized; 61%), 8 were racialized (35%) and 1 did not comment on race (4%). Reflexive thematic analysis captured participant perceptions of factors influencing research productivity, including individual, professional, institutional, and systemic aspects. Findings: Systemic bias and institutional culture, including racism, sexism, and unconscious biases against racialized women, emerge as key barriers to research productivity. The parenting life stage further compounds these biases. Barriers include lack of representation in faculty roles, toxic work environments, research productivity metrics, and exclusion by colleagues. Participants indicated that institutional reforms and systemic interventions are needed to foster a diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment. Strategies include recruiting equity-focused leaders, increasing representation of racialized female faculty, diversity training, mentorship programs, providing meaningful support, flexible work arrangements, and protected research time. Sponsors can offer more targeted grants for female and racialized researchers. Adjusting metrics for gender, race, parenthood, and collaborative metrics is proposed to enhance diversity and inclusion among researchers. Interpretation: This study underscores the importance of addressing systemic bias at institutional and systemic levels to create a fair and supportive environment for primary care researchers. A multitude of strategies are needed including increasing representation of racialized female faculty, creating supportive and psychologically safe work environments, and public reporting of data on faculty composition for accreditation and funding decisions. Together, these strategies can alleviate the triple whammy and free these researchers from the Sisyphus Punishment - the absurdity of being asked to climb a hill while pushing a boulder with no hope of reaching the top. Funding: College of Family Physicians of Canada.

RESUMEN

American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) diplomates who pursue clinical fellowship training in pain medicine may be better suited to lead scholarly projects and serve as first authors of publications in peer-reviewed journals given their additional training and clinical expertise. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether ABA certification in pain medicine is associated with a greater number of peer-reviewed publications. The secondary aim included assessments of whether pain medicine fellowship training is associated with a higher publication rate (publications per year) or publication in a larger number of peer-reviewed journals. A literature search was conducted in December 2023 using the Scopus database for publications related to anesthesiology and pain medicine in the United States between 2013 and 2023. First authors identified through the search were then individually searched within the ABA physician directory. The following data were collected: author name and identification number, year of publication, publication type (article or review), year of primary anesthesiology certification, and year of fellowship, if applicable. This study identified 9,612 publications and 6,924 unique first authors. Pain medicine fellowship training was associated with a statistically significant increase (p-value < 0.001) in the number of publications (0.546; 95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.386-0.707), publications per year (0.140; 95% CI, 0.121-0.159), and publication in a larger number of peer-reviewed journals (0.256; 95% CI, 0.182-0.330) in regression models adjusted for the number of years from certification. This query of the Scopus database and ABA physician directory indicates that pain medicine fellowship training is associated with statistically significant increases in research productivity, as defined by the number of publications, publications per year, or the number of publications in peer-reviewed journals. However, these increases in research output would not lead to a marked increase in scholarship productivity to justify pursuing a fellowship for this purpose.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Rewards can both validate and promote the stature of a researcher in their field. Research has been mixed on the role of gender as a predictor of receiving scholarly awards, but much of it lacks control for research excellence, and awards in interdisciplinary associations have been neglected. This study fills these gaps for suicidology. METHODS: Bibliometric data from the Web of Science was utilized for this study. To control for research excellence the analysis is restricted to the 116 most highly prolific researchers, each with 70 or more works published on suicide, from the Web of Science. The research awards in suicidology, given by three different interdisciplinary associations, include the Louis I. Dublin Award, the Morselli Medal, and the Stengel Research Award. The link between gender and receipt of a major award is adjusted for possible mediators including long-term research productivity (h-index), years of experience, and organizational prestige. RESULTS: While the percentage of women winning awards is less than that of men, we find that there is no significant difference between the genders. The quality of research and years of experience predict the receipt of each award. CONCLUSION: Based on a bibliometric analysis, women are not at a disadvantage in receiving research awards in suicidology. These results are consistent with recent research on gender and awards in economics, mathematics, and psychology.

RESUMEN

The evaluation of publication growth is a vital indicator to assess any branch of knowledge. The present study aimed to investigate the Scopus-indexed publications on orthodontics produced by the Arab League Nations in the last two decades (2002-2021). Quantitative research method based on bibliometric analysis has been used and the meta-data for the study was retrieved from Elsevier's Scopus database on November 14, 2022. The bibliographic description of all types of literature published on orthodontics from 2002 to 2021 by the authors affiliated with the Arab countries has been downloaded. The selected bibliometric indicators of the data were analyzed by using Microsoft Excel, VOSviewer and SPSS software. The Arab League Nations contributed 5.02 % to global orthodontic research. This segment has demonstrated an amazing escalation of documents from a global perspective between 2002 and 2021 from 1.24 % to 10.94 %. Slightly more than 60 % of documents were published during the last five years of study (2017-2021). The highest number of documents (41 %) was produced by Saudi Arabia, whereas documents contributed by Jordan gained the maximum citation impact. The majority of collaboration was done with the United States, but documents produced in collaboration with Turkey gained the highest citation impact. The paper highlighted that the share of Arab League Nations in orthodontic research has been growing, and Saudi Arabia emerged as the most productive country. The constructive evolution of orthodontic literature with international collaboration display an ambitious approach by Arab countries.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Medical research productivity is globally increasing, with a lagging progress in third-world countries due to significant challenges, including inadequate training and brain drain. Syria had been showing a slow upward trend until the war broke out and severely hindered academic growth and productivity. A deeper understanding of the factors influencing research productivity in this context are fundamental to guide educational policies and resource allocation. Previous cross-sectional studies that evaluated the perspectives of Syrian academics on the issue were limited by the small sample size of published healthcare workers, making it difficult to identify the factors that enabled them to pursue research. METHODS: To address this challenge, we employed a case-control design. We isolated published early-career Syrian healthcare workers and compared their characteristics and perceptions to unpublished matched controls. Authors in the fields of medicine, dentistry, and pharmacy affiliated with any Syrian University were identified through an extensive search of PubMed and Google Scholar.These authors were invited to complete a questionnaire that covered participants' research contributions, alongside their self-assessed knowledge, attitudes, and barriers towards research. The questionnaire was publicly published to recruit an equal sample of matching controls, with half consisting of unpublished researchers and the other half of participants without prior research contributions. RESULTS: Six-hundred-sixteen participants were recruited. Their knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers explained 46% and 34% of the variability in research involvement and publication, respectively (P < 0.001). Getting involved in and publishing research studies associated with higher research-related knowledge and attitudes (P < 0.001). Respondents' assessment of research-related barriers and their academic scores did not differ between cases and controls. Superior research-related knowledge and attitudes were associated with male gender, higher English competency, and better internet connectivity. Meanwhile, extracurricular training and mentors' support were associated with more positive research-related attitudes and less perceived barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Research productivity of medical professionals in Syria exhibits a positive correlation with their knowledge and favorable attitudes towards medical research. Noteworthy, the demographic variations are linked to disparities in research-related knowledge and motivation. In conclusion, these results suggest a potential avenue for enhancement through concentrated efforts on improving extracurricular training interventions and mentors' support.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To provide relative citation ratio (RCR) benchmark data for the field of glaucoma. DESIGN: Cross-sectional bibliometric analysis. SUBJECTS: Fellowship-trained glaucoma faculty at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited institutions. METHODS: Glaucoma faculty were individually indexed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) iCite website. Publication count, mean RCR score, and weighted RCR score were collected for each author between May and August 2023 and included PubMed-listed articles from 1980 to 2023. Data were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and acquisition of a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total number of publications, mean RCR value, and weighted RCR value. RESULTS: Five hundred twenty-six academic glaucoma specialists from 113 institutions were indexed. These physicians produced highly impactful research with a median publication count of 13 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-38), median RCR of 1.41 (IQR 0.97-1.98), and median weighted RCR of 16.89 (4.80-63.39). Academic rank, career duration, and having a PhD were associated with increased publication count, mean RCR, and weighted RCR. Publication count and weighted RCR differed significantly by sex; however, no difference was observed with mean RCR. CONCLUSIONS: Current academic glaucoma specialists have high mean RCR values relative to the NIH standard RCR value of 1. This benchmark data serve as a more accurate gauge of research impact within the glaucoma community and can be used to inform self, institutional, and departmental evaluations. Additionally, the mean RCR may provide an accurate metric for quantifying research productivity among historically underrepresented groups that are disadvantaged by time-dependent factors such as number of publications. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: We aim to evaluate the impact of recent changes in the residency matching process on surgical specialties' applicants and programs to offer recommendations on residency selection and matching processes. METHODS: We utilized five databases while employing a Boolean query to search for studies from 2015 to March 2024. The search selection focused on factors and recent changes influencing residency match results across surgical specialties, including USMLE Step 1 pass/fail, research productivity, interview structure, and preference and geographic signaling. RESULTS: The shift of the USMLE Step 1 to a pass/fail scoring system revealed a consensus among surgical program directors (PDs) and applicants not in favor of the change due to the emphasis on additional application elements. Research productivity was identified as a significant factor, especially in neurosurgery (with an average of 18.3 publications per applicant) and vascular surgery (8.3 publications), indicating a positive correlation between the number of publications and match outcomes. The adoption of virtual interviews has been well-received by both applicants and PDs, leading to an increase in the number of interviews offered and applicants. The implementation of preference and geographic signaling mechanisms has improved interview rates for applicants who utilize them. CONCLUSION: The transition to a pass/fail USMLE Step 1 has raised concerns among surgical specialties, necessitating a greater focus on Step 2 scores and research productivity. Virtual interviews and signaling have improved the accessibility and reach of the residency application process, however, the full impact of these changes on the perception of applicant-program fit remains unclear.

RESUMEN

Significant advancements in public health come from scientific discoveries, but more are needed to meet the ever-growing societal needs. Examining the best practices of outstanding scientists may help develop future researchers and lead to more discoveries. This study compared the comprehensive work of 49 Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine from 2000 to 2019 to a matched control of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded biomedical investigators. Our unique data set, comprising 11,737 publications, 571 US patents, and 1693 NIH research awards produced by pre-Nobel laureates, was compared to a similar data set of control researchers. Compared to control researchers, pre-Nobel laureates produce significantly more publications annually (median = 5.66; interquartile range [IQR] = 5.16); significantly fewer coauthors per publication (median = 3.32; IQR = 1.95); consistently higher Journal Impact Factor publications (median = 12.04; IQR = 6.83); and substantially more patents per researcher (median = 5; IQR = 14). Such differences arose from nearly identical cumulative NIH award budgets of pre-Nobel laureates (median $25.3 M) and control researchers. Nobel laureates are neither hyper-prolific (>72 papers per year) nor hyper-funded (>$100 M cumulative). An academic age-specific trajectory graph allows aspiring researchers to compare their productivity and collaboration patterns to those of pre-Nobel laureates.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Neurological surgery remains one of the most competitive specialties with a match rate of <70%. Historically, medical student performance was gauged through the USMLE Step 1. However, with the recent exam score change, metrics such as recommendation letters, research, and clerkship grades carry increased importance. Research experiences vary greatly between institutions and medical students depend on faculty/resident mentorship in order to facilitate scholarly activity. We previously reported our 2-year intensive research initiative (IRI) in a neurosurgery program. Here we report successful implementation of the IRI in a disparate setting, a department devoid of residents, and demonstrate the IRI's reproducibility with non-resident learners. MATERIALS & METHODS: We compared retrospective data from 2007 to 2020 with the IRI's results during the 2-year study period (July 2020-July 2022). RESULTS: The IRI resulted in a rapid exponential increase in publications, with medical student led peer-reviewed publications (PRPs) increasing 1000% and pre-residency fellow (PRF) PRPs increasing by 4900%. Learner involvement on PRPs pre-IRI was 31%, increasing to 72% post-IRI implementation. CONCLUSIONS: We present the IRI's success increasing academic productivity despite utilizing only non-resident learners. Students underrepresented in medicine and those at non-tier 1 institutions receive unequal research and clinical opportunities, therefore, prioritizing and providing sufficient opportunities/mentorship is crucial in their success in matching into competitive specialties. Our IRI allows for early faculty/resident student mentorship and gives students more flexibility as it allows medical students at varying stages to participate in research with no set time frame.

RESUMEN

Background: Research experience is mandatory for all Orthopaedic Surgery residency programs. Although the allocation of required protected time and resources varies from program to program, the underlying importance of research remains consistent with mutual benefit to both residents and the program and faculty. Authorship and publications have become the standard metric used to evaluate academic success. This study aimed to determine if there is a correlation between the research productivity of Orthopaedic Surgery trainees and their subsequent research productivity as attending Orthopaedic Surgeons. Methods: Using the University of Mississippi Orthopaedic Residency Program Research Productivity Rank List, 30 different Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Programs were analyzed for the names of every graduating surgeon in their 2013 class. PubMed Central was used to screen all 156 physicians and collect all publications produced by them between 2008 and August 2022. Results were separated into two categories: Publications during training and Publications post-training. Results: As defined above, 156 Surgeons were analyzed for publications during training and post-training. The mean number of publications was 7.02 ± 17.819 post-training vs. 2.47 ± 4.313 during training, P < 0.001. The range of publication post-training was 0-124 vs. 0-30 during training. Pearson correlation between the two groups resulted in a value of 0.654, P < 0.001. Conclusion: Higher research productivity while training correlates to higher productivity post-training, but overall Orthopaedic surgeons produce more research after training than during. With the growing importance of research, more mentorship, time, and resources must be dedicated to research to instill and foster greater participation while in training.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Research evidence to inform primary care policy and practice is essential for building high-performing primary care systems. Nevertheless, research output relating to primary care remains low worldwide. This study describes the factors associated with the research productivity of primary care researchers. METHODS: A qualitative, descriptive key informant study approach was used to conduct semi-structured interviews with twenty-three primary care researchers across Canada. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-three primary care researchers participated in the study. An interplay of personal (psychological characteristics, gender, race, parenthood, education, spousal occupation, and support), professional (mentorship before appointment, national collaborations, type of research, career length), institutional (leadership, culture, resources, protected time, mentorship, type), and system (funding, systematic bias, environment, international collaborations, research data infrastructure) factors were perceived to be associated with research productivity. Research institutes and mentors facilitated collaborations, and mentors and type of research enabled funding success. Jurisdictions with fewer primary care researchers had more national collaborations but fewer funding opportunities. The combination of institutional, professional, and system factors were barriers to the research productivity of female and/or racialized researchers. CONCLUSIONS: This study illuminates the intersecting and multifaceted influences on the research productivity of primary care researchers. By exploring individual, professional, institutional, and systemic factors, we underscore the pivotal role of diverse elements in shaping RP. Understanding these intricate influencers is imperative for tailored, evidence-based interventions and policies at the level of academic institutions and funding agencies to optimize resources, promote fair evaluation metrics, and cultivate inclusive environments conducive to diverse research pursuits within the PC discipline in Canada.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Bibliometrics, such as the Hirsch index (h-index) and the more recently developed relative citation ratio (RCR), are utilized to evaluate research productivity. Our study evaluates demographics, research productivity, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in academic otology. METHODS: Academic otologists were identified, and their demographics were collected using institutional faculty profiles (N = 265). Funding data were obtained using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports Database. The h-index was calculated using Scopus and mean (m-RCR) and weighted RCR (w-RCR) were calculated using the NIH iCite tool. RESULTS: H-index (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.27, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 0.97-2.31, p = 0.069) or w-RCR (aOR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p = 0.231), was associated with receiving NIH funding. Men had greater h-index (16 vs. 9, p < 0.001) and w-RCR (51.8 vs. 23.0, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (1.3 vs. 1.3, p = 0.269) than women. Higher academic rank was associated with greater h-index and w-RCR (p < 0.001). Among assistant professors, men had greater h-index than women (9.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.025). At career duration 11-20 years, men had greater h-index (14.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.009) and w-RCR (52.7 vs. 25.8, p = 0.022) than women. CONCLUSION: The h-index has a strong relationship with NIH funding in academic otology. Similar h-index, m-RCR, and w-RCR between men and women across most academic ranks and career durations suggests production of similarly impactful research. The m-RCR may correct some deficiencies of time-dependent bibliometrics and its consideration in academic promotion and research funding allocation may promote representation of women in otology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A Laryngoscope, 134:3786-3794, 2024.

Asunto(s)