Median Number Of Publications Research Articles

Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences: A Scoping Review of Uncited Research

The goal of this bibliometric analysis is to summarize publications on the contributions of a higher education university in arts, humanities, and social sciences and evaluate their citation status. Ninety-one publications were indexed in Scopus and WOS databases between 2018 and 2022. All publications appeared in 69 different journals, books, and conferences. About 51.6% of all studies were single-authored. The median number of publications per author was 27.01 ± 48.0 and that of citations was 223.0 ± 764.0. Positive correlations were observed between the journal’s CiteScore and authors’ count with citation number ( r2 = .625 and .207 respectively; p < .005). Publications written by ≥3 authors with international collaboration received the maximum number of citations ( p < .005). Moreover, the mean number of citations for publications written by associate or assistant professors was significantly higher than those composed by their peers ( p = .033). Defining the field of arts and humanities remains a difficult exercise, because of its blurry theoretical background. Thus, a repetitive evaluation of its current status remains essential.

Analysis of Research Activity Among Ophthalmology Fellows

ABSTRACT Purpose The academic success of ophthalmology fellows may be significantly impacted by their research engagement. Evaluating the research activity of fellows by subspecialty may provide insight into trends useful for prospective applicants. The objective of this study was to assess the research activity of ophthalmology fellows in the year 2023. Methods Ophthalmology fellowship programs were compiled using the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology and the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery websites. Program subspecialties were categorized as: Cornea and External Disease [CED]; Cornea, External Disease, and Refractive Surgery [CEDRS]; Glaucoma; Medical Retina [MR]; Neuro-Ophthalmology [NO]; Oculoplastics; Pediatric Ophthalmology [PO]; Surgical Retina [SR]; Uveitis; and Other. “Other” consisted of Oncology, Pathology, combined Oncology and Pathology fellowships. We identified current fellows using publicly available online information. Programs and fellows that did not have information available were excluded. Total publications, Hirsch index (h-index), and weighted-relative citation ration (w-RCR) were utilized as measures of research output, while total citations and mean-RCR (m-RCR) served as proxies for research impact. Duration of publishing was calculated using the years of the oldest and most recent publications. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal–Wallis H tests with an alpha value of .05. Results A total of 373 fellows from 229 programs met our inclusion criteria. More than half of fellows were men (54.4%), and the most common degree type was MD (93.0%). Across all subspecialties, the median h-index was 3.0 (IQR = 4), m-RCR was .9 (IQR = 1.2) and w-RCR was 3.2 (IQR = 9.8). The median number of publications was six (IQR = 10, with 34 citations (IQR = 110) and 4 years of publishing (IQR = 6). We observed significant differences in h-index (p = .038), total publications (p < .001), and w-RCR (p = .028) by subspecialty. Conclusion We observed significant differences in research output, but no differences in research impact by subspecialty. Overall, Uveitis and Oculoplastics fellows had higher research activity, while Medical Retina and Other fellows had the lowest. This data is pertinent to better understand the landscape of ophthalmology fellowship applications.

Characterization of Research Mentorship During Medical School for Future Radiation Oncology Trainees

Medical student access to radiation oncology (RO) research opportunities is important for stimulating interest in the specialty. The purpose of this study was to assess the publication record during medical school of students who ultimately matched in RO, to characterize the source(s) of their RO mentorship relative to other specialties. We performed web-based searches to identify manuscripts published during medical school (defined as being published from January 2016 to December 2019) for all RO residents with postgraduate year 2 status in 2020 to 2021. Students with a PhD degree and international graduates were excluded. Characteristics of these publications, the student, and the primary mentor, were assessed. A total of 435 publications were authored by the 148 included residents. In total, 115 (78%) attended a medical school with an affiliated RO residency program. The median number of publications per student was 2 (interquartile range, 1-4), and students' median byline author position was 2 (interquartile range, 1-4). In total, 351 publications (80.7%) were on a cancer-related topic, with 234 (53.8%) published in oncology-oriented journal, and 96 (22.0%) published in RO-oriented journals. There were 294 unique mentors, with 70 mentors (24%) on 2 or more student publications. Most mentors (n = 187, 64%) shared the same institution as the student. Mentors were most commonly radiation oncologists/radiation biologists/medical physicists (n = 153, 52.6%), surgical subspecialists (n = 53, 21%), and medical oncologists (n = 18, 6.2%). Students working with primary RO mentors were more likely to publish in an oncology-oriented journal (79.1% vs 18.2%, P < .01) or RO-oriented journal (36.2% vs 2.2%, P < .01), compared with students working with non-RO mentors, respectively. A higher percentage of publications with RO mentors occurred in the last 2 years of medical school compared with the first 2 years (64.0% vs 40.9%, respectively, P < .01). Approximately one-half of student publications among future RO residents are published in nononcology journals, and result from mentoring relationships with non-RO physicians.

High Research Productivity During Orthopaedic Surgery Residency May Be Predicted by Number of Publications as a Medical Student.

Orthopaedic applicants have increased the average number of publications on their residency application to compete with the growing competitiveness of the field. The purpose of this study was to assess whether research productivity before orthopaedic residency and caliber of one's institution is correlated with academic productivity during residency. Scopus was used to extract publication metrics. Quantity and quality (how often the publications were cited) were analyzed at 2 different time periods: before and during residency. All subjects in the study had graduated an ACGME-accredited orthopaedic surgery residency in 2021. Military residents, international medical graduates, and residents not listed on their department's website were excluded. Residents were categorized as both high (≥2 publications) or low (<2 publications) publishers according to their pre-residency publications. They were also categorized based on their program's Jones et al. research productivity ranking. For the 758 residents, the median number of publications was 0 (Interquartile Range [IQR]: 0-2) and 3 (IQR: 1-6) before and during residency, respectively. High publishing medical students had more publications during training than low publishers (6 [IQR: 3-14] and 2 [IQR: 1-4], p < 0.001). Residents at higher ranked programs also had more publications (4 [IQR: 2-9] and 2 [IQR: 0-4], p < 0.001). High publishing students now training at lower ranked institutions had more publications during residency than low publishers who trained at more productive institutions (4 [IQR: 1-9] and 3 [IQR: 1-6], p < 0.001). Having 2 or more publications before residency is correlated with an increased number of publications during residency. While attending a higher academically productive program is associated with increased resident publications, a high publishing medical student would be expected to have more publications during residency than a low publishing student, regardless of program rank. Notably, most matched applicants continue to have zero publications before matriculation.

Who Are the Mentors of the Future Endourologist? An Analysis of Endourological Society Program Directors.

Introduction: Surgical training programs are pivotal in shaping skilled and compassionate surgeons, with mentors playing a crucial role in instilling clinical competence and essential attributes. This study aims to describe the characteristics of the program directors of Endourological Society-accredited fellowship programs. Methodology: The Endourological Society's website was used to identify program directors. The following data points were extracted: year of graduation from medical school, year of completing residency, if they had attended fellowship training or held additional degrees such as (PhD, MS, MBA, MSc, etc.), and number of publications on Scopus. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Results: A total of 84 fellowship programs and 115 program directors were identified. Geographically, 77.4% (n = 65) were in North America, 8.3% (n = 7) in Asia, 8.3% (n = 7) in the Middle East, 3.6% (n = 3) in Europe, and 2.4% (n = 2) in South America. Of the 115 program directors, 94.8% were male, and only 5.2% were female. Program directors graduated medical school with a median year of 1998 (1966-2015). Eighty percent attended fellowship programs, and 19.1% held additional degrees (PhD, MS, MBA, MSc, etc.). The median number of publications was 79 (4-1963), with a median citation of 1607 (1-43,565). The median H-index was 23 (range: 1-110). Conclusion: Most program directors of Endourological Society-accredited fellowship programs are fellowship-trained and a notable number held a second degree. However, a pronounced gender disparity is observed, with limited female representation among program directors. This assessment contributes valuable insights into the urology and endourology mentorship, emphasizing the need for broader diversity and inclusivity in leadership roles.

Sociodemographics Impact Competitiveness in the Neurosurgical Match: Survey Results

BackgroundThe Neurosurgical Match involves selecting future neurosurgeons who will comprise the future national workforce, based on a competitive ranking process against other applicants. We aimed to identify which sociodemographic and academic factors influence competitiveness and rank position in The Match. MethodsA Council of State Neurosurgical Societies survey was distributed to current United States neurosurgical residents. The primary outcome measure was self-reported rank position of matched program. Variables queried included sociodemographic and academic metrics. Fisher’s exact, logistic regression, and t-tests were performed. ResultsFrom the 72 responses, there was a median United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 1 score of 248, 34.7% were Alpha Omega Alpha inductees, 77.8% completed one-to-three sub-internship rotations, median number of publications was 5, and 13.9% of respondents had PhDs. Sociodemographic analysis demonstrated that 69.4% were male and 30.6% were female. Applicants with a home-neurosurgery program or of female gender had statistically significantly higher odds of matching into a top three program on their rank list (OR 9 and OR 6, respectively). Females exhibited similar mean, but less variance, compared to male respondents for USMLE Step 1 scores and number of publications. Of those with a top three program match, respondents were more likely to agree that the home program supported his/her pursuance of neurosurgery. ConclusionsTwo sociodemographic factors were independently associated with high match rank: presence of home-neurosurgery program and female gender (OR 9 and 6, respectively). Female respondents reported consistently strong academic metrics (similar mean to males, but less variance compared to males).

Article retractions rates in selected MeSH term categories in PubMed published between 2010 - 2020

ABSTRACT Background Academic article retractions occur across all disciplines, though few studies have examined the association between research topics and retraction rates. Objectives We assessed and compared the rate of retraction across several important clinical research topics. Methods Information about the number of publications, the number of retractions, the retraction rate, and the time to retraction was collected for articles identified by 15 Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. These articles were published between 1 January 2010, and 31 December 2020. The searches took place between 18 September 2021, and 24 October 2021. The MeSH terms were selected based on our clinical experience with the expectation that there will be multiple publications during the timeframe to use for the searches. Additional topics were selected based on the frequency of controversy in the public media and were identified by the Altmetric Top 100 report. Results The mean number of publications for all categories was 181,975 ± 332,245; the median number of publications was 67,991 [Q1-Q3; 31951.5, 138,981.5]. The mean number of retractions was 100.3 ± 251.3, and the median number of retractions was 22 [Q1, Q3; 6.5,53]. The mean time to retraction ranged from 114 days to 1,409.5 days; the median was 857.3 days [Q1, Q3; 684.7, 1098.6], depending on the topic. The various MeSH term categories used in this study had significant differences in retraction rate and time to retraction. The “Neoplasms” category had the highest total number of retractions (993) and one of the highest retraction rates (75.4 per 100,000 publications). Discussion All PubMed categories analyzed in this study had retracted articles. The median time to retraction was 857 days. The long delays in some categories could contribute to potentially misleading information which might have adverse effects on clinical decisions in patient care and on research design. Conclusion Rate of retraction varies across research topics and further studies are needed to explore this relationship.

The Neurosurgery Match: COVID-19 Comparison and Bibliometric Analysis

Because of the effect of COVID on academic opportunities, as well as limitations on travel, away rotations and in-person interviews, COVID-related changes could impact the neurosurgical resident demographics. Our aim was to retrospectively review the demographics of the previous four years of neurosurgery residents, provide bibliometric analysis of successful applicants, and analyze for the effects of COVID on the match cycle. All AANS residency program websites were examined for a list of demographic characteristics for current post-graduate year (PGY) 1 to 4. Gathered information included gender, undergraduate and medical institution and state, medical degree status, and prior graduate programs. A total of 114 institutions and 946 residents were included in the final review. 676 (71.5%) of the residents included in the analysis were male. Of the 783 who studied within the United States, 221 (28.2%) residents stayed within the same state of his or her medical school. 104 of 555 (18.7%) residents stayed within the same state of his or her undergraduate school. Demographic information as well as geographic switching relative to medical school, undergraduate school, and hometown showed no significant changes between pre-COVID and COVID-matched cohorts overall. The median number of publications per resident significantly increased for the COVID-matched cohort (median, 1; interquartile range (IQR), 0-4.75) when compared to the non-COVID-matched cohort (median, 1; IQR, 0-3, p = 0.004) as did first author publications (median, 1; IQR, 0-1 vs median, 1; IQR, 0-1; p = 0.015), respectively. The number of residents matching into the same region in the Northeast relative to undergraduate degree was significantly greater after COVID (56 (58%) vs 36 (42%), p = 0.026). The West demonstrated a significant increase in the mean number of total publications (4.0 ± 8.5 vs 2.3 ± 4.2, p = 0.02) and first author publications (1.24 ± 2.33 vs 0.68 ± 1.47, p = 0.02) after COVID, with the increase in first author publications being significant in a test of medians. Herein we characterized the most recently matched neurosurgery applicants, paying particular attention to changes over time in relation to the onset of the pandemic. Apart from publication volume, characteristics of residents and geographical preferences did not change with the influence of COVID-induced changes in the application process.

Assessment of Research Mentorship During Medical School for Future Radiation Oncology Trainees

Assessment of Research Mentorship During Medical School for Future Radiation Oncology Trainees

The Sinatra Doctrine: bespoke approaches to academic research in surgery

Introduction Academic scholarly credentials are now obtained in two broad ways: out of programme research (OOPR) experience via bespoke funding (BF) or a higher degree (HD) funded by run-through fellowships (academic clinical fellow/lecturer in England or Wales Clinical Academic Track [WCAT]). The aim of this study was to determine the relative academic credentials achieved related to HD route, surgical specialty and topic. Methods Fifty-four postgraduate trainees engaged in HD study were followed and the primary outcome measures were HD completion, publication number and Hirsch index (HI). Results There were 38 BF trainees and 16 WCAT trainees. General surgical trainees were more likely to choose postgraduate research (n = 37, 68.5%) than other specialties (n = 17, 31.5%). Similarly, trainees in general surgery were more likely to choose the BF route than the WCAT pathway (94.6% vs 12.5%, (p &lt; 0.001), with ethnic minorities also more likely to choose WCAT (56.3% vs 18.4%, p = 0.005). HD completion rates were 82.1% in the BF cohort and 88.9% in the WCAT group (p = 0.409). The median number of publications was 17 versus 18 respectively (p = 0.894) and the median HI was 7 in both groups (p = 0.690). OOPR experience during phase 1 of surgical training was associated with a higher HI (11 vs 0, p = 0.011). Degree type (MD vs PhD) was not associated with HD completion (80.0% vs 91.7%, p = 0.374), publication number (15 vs 19, p = 0.958) or HI (7 vs 5, p = 0.107). Conclusions HD routes appear equivalent although specialty related HI outcomes varied over fourfold. Trainees and training programme directors alike should be aware of these outcomes when planning OOPR training. Surgical training is multifaceted and should result in a competent clinician, able scholar, first class communicator, health advocate and well rounded professional. 1 Surgical research has served as the foundation for evidence-based clinical practice as long ago as Galen. 2 Nevertheless, in the UK and since the inception of Modernising Medical Careers, out of programme research (OOPR) experience has lost its allure. 3 , 4 Indeed, other distinguishing credentials are available, such as subspecialty clinical attachments, and qualifications in management, education and leadership.

P87. Have industry consulting payments to orthopedic spine surgeons continued to correlate with academic productivity? Revisiting the physician payments sunshine act

P87. Have industry consulting payments to orthopedic spine surgeons continued to correlate with academic productivity? Revisiting the physician payments sunshine act

Blind leading the blind: Is the current peer review process really that flawed? (519)

<b>Objectives:</b> The peer-review process has an inherent bias, and a double-blinded review has recently been introduced into national obstetrics and gynecologic journals to mitigate this bias. Our primary aim was to determine if the number of articles published per institution in <i>Gynecologic Oncology</i> correlates with the articles' quality, using the index of citation (IOC) as a stand-in for article quality. The secondary outcome was to calculate the proportion of original articles from non-US institutions and their corresponding median IOC. <b>Methods:</b> PubMed was queried for all articles in the journal <i>Gynecologic Oncology</i> from 2005-2020. Two cohorts were analyzed. The first cohort consisted of original articles published from institutions within the United States (US). Articles not from the US or not deemed original research (editorials, reviews, case reports, etc.) were not included in this cohort. First, author affiliation bylines listed in PubMed were used to assign articles to their corresponding institution. Universities and colleges were used preferentially in instances where multiple affiliations were in a first author's byline. Affiliations had to be listed in an author's byline to assign the article to that institution. In instances where affiliation was unclear, all three reviewers had to agree which institution to assign an article or article was excluded. PubMed "Cited By" number was used as a proxy for the quality of the article published. To account for lead-time bias, an Index of Citation (IOC) was calculated by dividing the number of citations by the days from the publication date to the data cuff-off date, September 1, 2021. The median value summarized the IOC per institution. Correlation coefficients were estimated using Pearson's correlation after log-transformation. A second analysis of articles from all countries was performed, using median IOC as the primary descriptor statistic. Only countries with >2 original articles were included. <b>Results:</b> From 2005-2020, 2733 articles from 276 institutions within the US contributed original articles to the <i>Gynecologic Oncology</i> journal. The median number of publications per institution was two (range: 1,219). The median IOC was 0.0030 (0.0002, 0.2002). The median index of citation per institution was 0.0028 (0.0002, 0.0370). The Pearson's correlation coefficient between the number of publications per institution and median IOC was 0.14 (p=0.024), a weakly positive correlation. The Pearson's correlation coefficient between the number of publications per institution and that institution's max IOC was 0.68 (p<0.001), indicating a significantly positive, strong correlation. A second analysis of all original articles from the US and non-US institutions was performed. Five thousand two hundred fifteen original research articles were published from 41 countries. The median IOC for articles from non-US institutions was identical to the median IOC from US institutions (0.003 vs 0.003). Countries were then ranked by median IOC. The US ranked 15/41 and produced just over half (50.47%) of the published articles. <b>Conclusions:</b> Over the 15-year period of our study, a large number of institutions contributed articles to <i>Gynecologic Oncology.</i> The number of articles published per institution did not correlate with the median IOC, indicating the journal publishes articles cited at similar frequencies from various institutions within the US. Furthermore, articles from non-US institutions are nearly equally represented with equivalent IOC. Altogether, the journal's review system appears to be equitable.

Scholarly productivity and growth of academic hospital medicine full professors.

Scholarship remains the principal currency for faculty promotion in academic medicine. Reference pointsfor scholarly growth and productivity at academic medical centers (AMCs) are lacking. We identified hospital medicine full professors (HMFPs) at AMCs ranked in research by US News & World Report. Scopus was used to identify each HMFP's publications, citations, and Hirsch-index (H-index). Publications; citations; and first, middle, and senior author papers were measured in 3-year intervals postresidency. Scholarly productivity was analyzed by quintile based on publications, AMC research ranking, years postresidency, and grant funding. Data were extracted for 128 HMFPs from 54 AMCs. HMFPs were a mean of 20.5 (SD: 5.4) years postresidency. The median H-index was 7.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.0-16.0); the median number of publications was 15.0 (IQR: 4.0-51.0). Top quintile HMFPs had a median of 175.5 (IQR: 101.5-248.0) publications, whereas fifth quintile HMFPs had a median of 0.0(IQR: 0.0-1.0) (p < .001). HMFPs on faculty at the top 20 AMCs had a median of 35.5 (IQR: 11.0-108.0) publications, whereas HMFPs in AMCs ranked 81-122 had a median of 3.0 (IQR: 1.0-9.0) (p < .001). Grant-funded HMFPs had a median of 177.0 (IQR: 71.0-278.0) publications, while nongrant-funded HMFPs had a median of 11.0 (IQR: 3.0-25.0) (p < .001). At 3, 6, and 9 years postresidency, HMFPs had a median of 0.0 (IQR:0.0-1.0), 1.5 (IQR: 0.0-5.0), and 3.5 (IQR:0.0-11.0) publications. Fellowship training, additional degrees, and top 25 residency programs correlated with the top half of scholarly productivity. Scholarly productivity amongHMFPs varies considerably. At 3, 6, and 9 years postresidency, it is minimal to modest. Grant funding and AMC research rank may establish separate frames of reference for scholarly growth.

Implementation of a Structured Surgery Mentorship Program and Success in the Surgical Residency Match

IntroductionGeneral Surgery residency programs remain competitive, with over a quarter of US MD seniors failing to match into a categorical program each year. While previous literature has shown the role of mentorship in attracting medical students to surgery, there is a dearth of information demonstrating the role of mentorship in successfully matching those students to surgery programs. MethodsWe implemented a structured mentorship program for medical students interested in applying to general surgery or integrated plastics, vascular, or cardiothoracic residencies over the course of one year, consisting of seven standardized meetings and events spanning the students’ MS3 and MS4 years. Following Match Day, we sent students a five-point Likert scale survey to assess the perceived utility of each event and solicited self-reported application information. ResultsOf the 22 students at a single institution who attended the structured mentorship program and applied to general surgery residency, 100% matched into a categorical program, significantly higher than the 73% national match rate of US MD seniors into general surgery (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences between the two cohorts in terms of United States Medical Licensing Examination board scores, Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Society status, or median number of publications, research experiences, work experiences, or volunteer experiences. Nineteen of the 22 students responded to the survey, yielding an 86% response rate. Ninety percent of the students attended at least six out of the seven events. Six out of the seven events had median helpfulness scores (out of five) that were significantly higher than a “neutral” baseline (P < 0.05). ConclusionsA structured mentorship program may play a useful role in successfully matching general surgery applicants to residencies and would be a simple and low-cost program to implement at other medical schools.

Gender and early career faculty disparities in hematology and medical oncology board review lectures series.

11060 Background: Studies show that women and early career faculty members have less access to career development opportunities and leadership positions. These disparities slow the process of change and may affect leadership roles, promotions, and career advancements in academic medicine. Here, we provide the first analysis of speakers’ gender and early faculty disparities in hematology and medical oncology board review series. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of speakers at all major hematology and/or oncology board review series meetings, which were held in the United States between January 2017 and December 2021. Six major board review series were involved: Baylor/M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, the Brigham and Dana-Farber, George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, and the American Society of Hematology. Details of the lectures were acquired via accessing brochures available on the institutions’ official websites. Data on board certification and maintenance of certificate (MOC) were obtained from the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) website. We extracted the number of publications from the PubMed website (MEDLINE). Results: Our analysis included 1224 board review lectures presented by 386 speakers. Of which, 315 (81.6%) were American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) certified, and MOC was active in 56.1% of speakers. Females accounted for 37.7% of all speakers, with a representation of less than 50% in 5 out of 6 board review series. The least proportion of female participation was among lectures discussing malignant hematology topics (24.8%), followed by solid tumors (38.9%), and benign hematology topics (44.1%). Faculty members with more than 15 years of experience since initial certification presented more than half of the lectures. The median time from initial hematology or medical oncology certification to lecture presentation was 12.5 years and 14 years, respectively, which varied significantly among different series (p &lt; 0.001). Speakers’ median number of publications was 84. We also investigated how frequently the same speaker gave lectures. Thirteen male speakers conducted more than or equal to 10 lectures across all board review series, compared to only two female speakers who did the same. An upward trend of improvement in females participation was found at all board review conference meetings across the years. Conclusions: Our data suggest that women and early career faculty members are underrepresented in hematology and oncology board review series. Therefore, efforts should be made to ensure equal participation of them in such important activities needed to advance academic careers.

Abstract TP76: The Impact Of Registries In Stroke Literature

Introduction: Registries represent a main source of data to the advances in medical literature. In stroke medicine, they serve as key points of discussion and elaboration for future clinical trials, as well as evaluation tools for several treatment modalities in different patient populations. We performed an analysis of recent stroke registries to evaluate their impact in literature. Methods: We performed PubMed and Google Scholar search using keywords with Boolean operators to identify studies deriving from stroke registries between January 2000 and June 2021. All registries identified were further characterized regarding study design, sample size, number of centers, number of peer reviewed articles or conference abstracts originating from it, with their respective number of citations and impact factor of journals. Results: A total of 51 registries were identified, comprising 43584 patients. Forty-three (84.3%) were prospective. Forty-five (88.2%) were multicenter. Sixteen (31.4%) focused in a specific device for mechanical thrombectomy. Twenty-seven (52.9%) were registered on clinicaltrials.gov. The most participating countries were United States in 16 (31.4%) and Germany in 8 (15.7%). Twenty-seven (52.9%) registries originated a total of 295 peer-reviewed articles, 6841 citations and a sum of impact factors of 1282.8. The median impact factor of journals publishing articles from registries was 5.51 (interquartile range, 3.27-7.91). The median number of citations per article was 13 (interquartile range, 4-37). Between registered and unregistered registries, there was no significant difference in the median number of publications (P=0.08), citations (P=0.158) or impact factor (P=0.124). Between registries specific and unspecific to a certain device, there was no significant difference in median number of publications (P=1.67), citations (P=0.631) or impact factor (P=0.509). Conclusions: Stroke registries provide a meaningful data source for literature regardless of registration or specificity to a certain device, and represent a key mechanism in the advances of stroke care. Contribution to stroke registries are key mechanism to elucidate clinical questions that require large sample size and should be incentivized.

Impact of a grant program to spur advances in sickle cell disease research

AbstractMore than 20 years ago, clinical trials and federal grant support for sickle cell disease (SCD) research were not on par with support for other genetic diseases. Faced with the opportunity to spur research and advance treatments for SCD, and at the recommendation of advisors, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (DDCF) offered an SCD research funding opportunity starting in 2009 through its Innovations in Clinical Research Awards (ICRA) program. Twenty-eight new grants of $450 000 for direct costs over 3 years and 7 renewals were awarded, for a total investment of $17 million. Only about half the research teams garnered follow-on funding directly related to their ICRA projects, but the financial return on the research investment was substantial (∼4 times the original $17 million or 300%). All but 1 of the ICRA investigative teams published original research reports that acknowledged DDCF as a source of funding; the median number of publications per team was 3. Major innovations in the diagnosis and treatment of SCD included but were not limited to a demonstration that genetic modification of BCL11A enhancer is a potentially important treatment modality, establishment that plerixafor mobilization is safe and effective for those with SCD, development and validation of a new diagnostic called SCD BioChip, and evidence that hydroxyurea treatment is safe and efficacious in African children. These outcomes show that relatively small research grants can have a substantial return on investment and result in significant advances for a disease such as SCD.

Benchmarking Scholarly Activity by Pharmacists Who Are Fellows Within the American College of Critical Care Medicine.

OBJECTIVES:Quantify scholarly activity by pharmacists who are Fellows within the American College of Critical Care Medicine and to develop a potential publication benchmark for fellowship application.DESIGN:Review of the Scopus and PubMed online citation databases.SETTING:None.PATIENTS:None.INTERVENTIONS:None.MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Pharmacists designated Fellow of Critical Care Medicine (FCCM) were identified in January 2021 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Pharmacists designated Master of Critical Care Medicine (MCCM), without an active license, or were not identified in either online citation database were excluded. Practice setting characteristics were obtained from the American Hospital Association including country, state, geographic region, number of staffed beds, and hospital designation. Two online citation databases (Scopus and PubMed) were queried in February 2021, and year of first publication, total publications, citations, and Hirsch index were recorded. Of the 152 pharmacists designated FCCM, 138 (91%) were evaluable. Reasons for exclusion included MCCM designation (n = 7; 5%), lack of data in either online citation database (n = 4; 3%), and no active pharmacist license (n = 3; 2%). Most pharmacists were practicing in the Southern geographic region of the United States (n = 62; 45%) and at an academic medical center (n = 116; 84%). The median year of FCCM convocation was 2016 (2012–2019) and of the first publication was 2007 (2002–2011). After removing duplicates, 4,488 unique publications were identified. The median number of publications per individual pharmacist was 20 (9–43) with 10 (5–19) between the year of their first publication and FCCM convocation. Most scholarly activity was in the form of original research (n = 3,173; 71%) or reviews (n = 795; 18%). Individual pharmacists have 244 (99–661) citations and an h-index of 8 (5–13).CONCLUSIONS:Pharmacists designated FCCM have maintained a high level of scholarly activity. Pharmacists pursuing fellowship may use these data as a benchmark for fulfilling aspects of the core area of scholarly activities related to critical care medicine prior to application.

Scholarly Productivity and Rank in Academic Hospital Medicine.

Despite the rapid growth of academic hospital medicine, scholarly productivity remains poorly characterized. In this cross-sectional study, distribution of academic rank and scholarly output of academic hospital medicine faculty are described. We extracted data for 1,554 hospitalists on faculty at the top 25 internal medicine residency programs. Only 11.7% of faculty had reached associate (9.0%) or full professor (2.7%). The median number of publications was 0.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.0-4.0), with 51.4% without a single publication. Faculty 6 to 10 years post residency had a median of 1.0 (IQR, 0.0-4.0) publication, with 46.8% of these faculty without a publication. Among men, 54.3% had published at least one manuscript, compared to 42.7% of women (P < .0001). Predictors of promotion included H-index, number of years post residency graduation, completion of chief residency, and graduation from a top 25 medical school. Promotion remains uncommon in academic hospital medicine, which may be partially due to low rates of scholarly productivity.

NIH Funding, Research Productivity, and Scientific Impact: a 20-Year Study.

The Research Project Grant (R01) is the oldest grant mechanism used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Receiving an R01 award is often taken as a sign of scientific success. We presented normative data on multiple productivity and impact metrics for a more objective assessment of funded grants' scientific success. All initial R01 grants awarded by NIH in the year 2000 were prospectively followed and evaluated using the numbers of publications and citations, as well as the h-indices at the grant level. We examined the variability, time trends, and relations among these metrics to better understand the funded projects' cumulative output and impact. In the 20 years since initial funding, 4451 R01 grants generated a total of 55,053 publications. These publications were cumulatively cited 3,705,553 times over 736,811 citation years. The median number of publications was 8 (25th, 75th percentiles 4, 17) per grant for the entire 20-year duration. The median number of citations and the median h-index were 441 (25th, 75th percentiles 156, 1061) and 7 (25th, 75th percentiles 4, 13) per grant, respectively. The time courses of publication, citation, and accumulation of h-index were highly variable among the awarded grants. Although the metrics were correlated within an award, they reflected the grant's success in different domains. Numbers of publications, citations, and h-indices vary greatly among funded R01 grants. When used together, these metrics provide a more complete picture of the productivity and long-term impact of a funded grant.