Received National Institutes Of Health Funding Research Articles

Factors Associated with Research Productivity and National Institutes of Health Funding in Academic Otology.

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. 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. 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. 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. N/A Laryngoscope, 2024.

Assessing the Relationship between Radiology Department Research Funding and Institutional Community Inclusion and Investment.

Background Health care access disparities and lack of inclusion in clinical research have been well documented for marginalized populations. However, few studies exist examining the research funding of institutions that serve historically underserved groups. Purpose To assess the relationship between research funding awarded to radiology departments by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Lown Institute Hospitals Index rankings for inclusivity and community benefit. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included radiology departments awarded funding from the NIH between 2017 and 2021. The 2021 Lown Institute Hospitals Index rankings for inclusivity and community benefit were examined. The inclusivity metric measures how similar a hospital's patient population is to the surrounding community in terms of income, race and ethnicity, and education level. The community benefit metric measures charity care spending, Medicaid as a proportion of patient revenue, and other community benefit spending. Linear regression and Pearson correlation coefficients (r values) were used to evaluate the relationship between aggregate NIH radiology department research funding and measures of inclusivity and community benefit. Results Seventy-five radiology departments that received NIH funding ranging from $195 000 to $216 879 079 were included. A negative correlation was observed between the amount of radiology department research funding received and institutional rankings for serving patients from racial and/or ethnic minorities (r = -0.34; P < .001), patients with low income (r = -0.44; P < .001), and patients with lower levels of education (r = -0.46; P < .001). No correlation was observed between the amount of radiology department research funding and institutional rankings for charity care spending (r = -0.19; P = .06), community investment (r = -0.04; P = .68), and Medicaid as a proportion of patient revenue (r = -0.10; P = .22). Conclusion Radiology departments that received more NIH research funding were less likely to serve patients from racial and/or ethnic minorities and patients who had low income or lower levels of education. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Mehta and Rosen in this issue.

Including Community Partners in the Development and Adaptation of Intervention Strategies to Prevent Initiation or Escalation of Opioid Misuse.

Current literature lacks clear examples of how to engage with communities in the development of opioid misuse interventions for diverse populations and across various settings. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Helping to End Addiction Long-term® Initiative (HEAL) Prevention Cooperative (HPC) research projects work collaboratively with communities to develop and adapt their opioid misuse interventions to increase both feasibility and sustainability. Ten HPC projects were selected to receive NIH funding and are required to have partnerships with communities where their intervention is being conducted. This paper applies the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-adapted Public Participation Framework to examine the levels of community engagement used by each of these 10 HPC projects (Clinical and Translational Science Awards Consortium Community Engagement Key Function Committee Task Force on the Principles of Community Engagement, 2015). Using this framework, this paper illustrates the range of community engagement approaches and levels that the HPC projects rely on to develop, adapt, and adopt opioid prevention interventions across diverse populations and settings. This paper also lays a foundation for future examinations of the role of community engagement in intervention implementation and effectiveness and the level of community engagement that is necessary to improve intervention effectiveness.

National Institutes of Health funding among vascular surgeons is rare

BackgroundThe National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an essential source of funding for vascular surgeons conducting research. NIH funding is frequently used to benchmark institutional and individual research productivity, help determine eligibility for academic promotion, and as a measure of scientific quality. We sought to appraise the current scope of NIH funding to vascular surgeons by appraising the characteristics of NIH-funded investigators and projects. In addition, we also sought to determine whether funded grants addressed recent Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) research priorities. MethodsIn April 2022, we queried the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database for active projects. We only included projects that had a vascular surgeon as a principal investigator. Grant characteristics were extracted from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results database. Principal investigator demographics and academic background information were identified by searching institution profiles. ResultsThere were 55 active NIH awards given to 41 vascular surgeons. Only 1% (41/4037) of all vascular surgeons in the United States receive NIH funding. Funded vascular surgeons are an average of 16.3 years out of training; 37% (n = 15) are women. The majority of awards (58%; n = 32) were R01 grants. Among the active NIH-funded projects, 75% (n = 41) are basic or translational research projects, and 25% (n = 14) are clinical or health services research projects. Abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease are the most commonly funded disease areas and together accounted for 54% (n = 30) of projects. Three SVS research priorities are not addressed by any of the current NIH-funded projects. ConclusionsNIH funding of vascular surgeons is rare and predominantly consists of basic or translational science projects focused on abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease research. Women are well-represented among funded vascular surgeons. Although the majority of SVS research priorities receive NIH funding, three SVS research priorities are yet to be addressed by NIH-funded projects. Future efforts should focus on increasing the number of vascular surgeons receiving NIH grants and ensuring all SVS research priorities receive NIH funding.

Gender Disparity in National Institutes of Health Funding Among Surgeon-Scientists From 1995 to 2020

Surgical diseases account for approximately 30% of the global burden of disease. Gender diversity in biomedical research is critical to generate innovative patient-centered research in surgery. To examine the distribution of biomedical research funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) among women and men surgeon-scientists during a 25-year period. This cross-sectional study used publicly available data from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools: Expenditures and Results) database for research project grants awarded to women and men surgeon-scientists who were principal investigators between 1995 and 2020. Data were retrieved between January 20 and March 20, 2022. The representation of women surgeon-scientists among academic surgeons was compared with the representation of men surgeon-scientists over time. Distribution of NIH funding to women and men surgeon-scientists was examined via 2 metrics: holding a large-dollar (ie, R01-equivalent) grant and being a super principal investigator (SPI) with $750 000 or more in total annual research funding. Statistical analysis was performed between April 1 and August 31, 2022. Between 1995 and 2020, 2078 principal investigator surgeons received funding from the NIH. The proportion of women academic surgeons who were surgeon-scientists remained unchanged during this same period (1995, 14 of 792 [1.8%] vs 2020, 92 of 3834 [2.4%]; P = .10). Compared with their men counterparts, women surgeon-scientists obtained their first NIH grant earlier in their career (mean [SD] years after first faculty appointment, 8.8 [6.2] vs 10.8 [7.9] years; P < .001) and were as likely to obtain large-dollar grants (aRR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.95-1.03]) during the period 2016 to 2020. Despite this success, women surgeon-scientists remained significantly underrepresented among SPIs and were 25% less likely to be an SPI (aRR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.60-0.95] during the period 2016 to 2020). The findings of this cross-sectional study of NIH-funded surgeons suggest that women surgeons remained underrepresented among surgeon-scientists over a 25-year period despite early career success in receiving NIH funding. This is concerning and warrants further investigation to increase the distribution of NIH funding among women surgeon-scientists.

Fewer Than One in 20 Current Academic Orthopaedic Surgeons Have Obtained National Institutes of Health Funding.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding is a key driver of orthopaedic research, but it has become increasingly difficult to obtain in recent years. An understanding of the types of grants that are commonly funded, how productive they are, and the factors associated with obtaining funding may help orthopaedic surgeons better understand how to earn grants. In this study, we sought to determine (1) the proportion of current academic orthopaedic surgeons who have obtained NIH grant funding, (2) the productivity of these grants by calculating grant productivity metrics, and (3) the factors (such as gender, subspecialty, and additional degrees) that are associated with obtaining grant funding. Current academic orthopaedic surgeons at the top 140 NIH-funded institutions were identified via faculty webpages; 3829 surgeons were identified. Demographic information including gender (men constituted 88% of the group [3364 of 3829]), academic rank (full professors constituted 22% [856 of 3829]), additional degrees (those with MD-PhD degrees constituted 3% [121 of 3829]), leadership positions, and orthopaedic subspecialty was collected. Funding histories from 1985 through 2021 were collected using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results. Grant type, funding, publications, and citations of each article were collected. A previously used grant impact metric (total citations per USD 0.1 million) was calculated to assess grant productivity. Multivariable binomial logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with obtaining funding. Four percent (150 of 3829) of academic orthopaedic surgeons obtained USD 338.3 million in funding across 301 grants, resulting in 2887 publications over the entire study period. The R01 was the most commonly awarded grant in terms of the total number awarded, at 36% (108 of 301), as well as by funding, publications, and citations, although other grant types including T32, F32, R03, R13, and R21 had higher mean grant impact metrics. There was no difference between men and women in the by-gender percentage of academic orthopaedic surgeons who obtained funding (4% [135 of 3229] versus 3% [15 of 450]; odds ratio 0.9 [95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.7]; p = 0.80). A department having a single funded PhD researcher may be associated with surgeon-scientists obtaining grant funding, but with the numbers available, we could not demonstrate this was the case (OR 1.4 [95% CI 0.9 to 2.2]; p = 0.12). Fewer than one in 20 academic orthopaedic surgeons have received NIH funding. R01s are the most commonly awarded grant, although others demonstrate increased productivity metrics. Future studies should investigate the role of co-principal investigators on productivity and the role of different funding sources. Individuals should pursue both R01 and non-R01 grants, and departments should consider cultivating relationships with funded PhDs. The specific research infrastructure and departmental policies of the most productive institutions and grants should be surveyed and emulated.

The relationship between academic influence, NIH funding, and industry payments among academic shoulder and elbow surgeons.

The effect of academic influence, or the volume and quality of a surgeon's publications, on industry payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding has recently been studied in some academic orthopedic subspecialities. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between academic influence, industry payments, and NIH funding among American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons accredited shoulder and elbow fellowship faculty. Shoulder and elbow fellowships and affiliated faculty members were identified from the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons website. Academic influence, measured by the Hirsch (h)-index, and the number of articles published were determined for faculty members using the Scopus Database Author Identifier tool. Industry payments were derived from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. NIH funding was determined using the NIH's Research Portfolio Online Reporting tool. Statistical analysis used Spearman correlations and the Mann-Whitney U-test with an alpha value of 0.05 (P<.05). A total of 146 faculty members were included. Twenty-two percent (42 of 146) received nonresearch payments, whereas 78% (114 of 146) received industry research funding averaging $6364 (standard deviation=$21,213). NIH funding averaged $272,589 (standard deviation=$224,635), and 5% received NIH funding (7 of 146). Faculty members who received NIH funding had a higher average h-index than those who did not (38±22 vs. 22.64±22.7, P=.02), whereas those receiving industry research payments had a greater number of publications than those who did not (127.97±127.2 vs. 100.3±122.3, P=.03). Industry nonresearch payments did not impact the number of publications or the h-index. This study demonstrated that academic influence among academic shoulder and elbow surgeons is not greater in those who receive nonresearch industry funding. However, surgeons with industry research funding did produce more publications, whereas NIH funding is associated with greater academic influence.

Current Status of National Institutes of Health Research Funding for Women Surgeon-Scientists

Women have made substantial advancements in academic surgery, but research funding disparities continue to hamper their progress, and current literature on the status of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding awarded to women surgeon-scientists appears to be conflicting. To examine gender-based differences in NIH funding awarded to surgeon-scientists by comparing total grant amounts awarded and the distribution of grants by gender and research type. This cross-sectional study was performed using a previously created database of NIH-funded surgeons from 2010 to 2020. Active physician data from the Association of American Medical Colleges were used to calculate total surgeon populations. This study was performed at the NIH using the NIH internal data platform, iSearch Grants. A total of 715 men and women surgeon-scientists funded by the NIH in 2010 and 1031 funded in 2020 were included in the analysis. The main outcome was the number of women among the total number of surgeons who received NIH grants and the total grant amounts awarded to them. Bivariate χ2 analyses were performed using population totals and substantiated by z tests of population proportions. This study included 715 physicians (n = 579 men [81.0%]) in 2010 and 1031 physicians (n = 769 men [74.6%]) in 2020. In 2020, women comprised 27.4% of the surgical workforce and 25.4% of surgeons with research funding in the US, but they received only 21.7% of total NIH research funding awarded to all surgeons. The number of funded women surgeon-scientists, however, significantly increased from 2010 to 2020 (262 [25.4%] in 2020 vs 136 [19.0%] in 2010; P < .001) as did their funding ($189.7 million [21.7%] in 2020 vs $75.9 million [12.3%] in 2010; P < .001). Furthermore, the proportion of US women surgeons overall with NIH funding significantly increased in 2020 vs 2010 (0.7% vs 0.5%; P < .001). Basic science, clinical outcomes, and clinical trial R01 grants also increased among women surgeon-scientists. Women and men K grant holders had a similar mean (SD) number of R01 application attempts before success (2.7 [3.01] vs 2.3 [3.15]; P = .60) and similar K-to-R award conversion rates (23.5% vs 26.7%; P = .55). This cross-sectional study found an increasing number of women surgeon-scientists receiving NIH funding in 2020 vs 2010 as well as increases in the median grant amounts awarded. Although these results are promising, a discrepancy remains in the proportion of women in the surgical workforce compared with those funded by the NIH and the total grant amounts awarded to them.

Biomedical Researchers' Perceptions of the NIH's Sex as a Biological Variable Policy for Animal Research: Results from a U.S. National Survey.

Background: In 2015, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established a policy on sex as a biological variable (SABV) in an effort to address the overrepresentation of men and male animals in biomedical research and the lack of attention to sex-based responses to medical treatments. However, questions remain regarding how U.S. biomedical researchers perceive the impact of the SABV policy on their own research and on translational science more broadly.Materials and Methods: A national survey of U.S. scientists who use vertebrate animals in their research was conducted. Respondents were asked how they select and use animal species as model organisms as well as how they perceive the impact of the SABV policy on their research practices.Results: Almost all respondents reported that they had previously heard of the NIH SABV policy, and over one-third had altered their study designs to comply with the policy. There were robust differences in perceptions of the SABV policy based on researchers' primary species of model organism. However, there was no significant difference in the likelihood of researchers analyzing their results by sex based on whether they had received recent NIH funding.Conclusions: While many researchers report adhering to the SABV policy requirements, more work needs to be done to ensure that the policy is being evenly applied to researchers using all types of animal models and that researchers adhere to the policy after receiving NIH funding, particularly in terms of reporting on and analyzing SABV in their study findings for publication.

Factors predictive of an academic otolaryngologist's scholarly impact.

ObjectivesDescribe the h index as a bibliometric that can be utilized to objectively evaluate scholarly impact. Identify which otolaryngology subspecialties are the most scholarly. Describe if NIH funding to one’s choice of medical school, residency, or fellowship has any impact on one’s scholarly output. Determine other factors predictive of an academic otolaryngologist’s productivity.Study designAnalysis of bibliometric data of academic otolaryngologists.MethodsActive grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to otolaryngology departments were ascertained via the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports database. Faculty listings from these departments were gleaned from departmental websites. H index was calculated using the Scopus database.ResultsForty-seven otolaryngology programs were actively receiving NIH funding. There were 838 faculty members from those departments who had a mean h index of 9.61. Otology (h index 12.50) and head and neck (h index 11.96) were significantly (P < 0.0001) more scholarly than the rest of subspecialists. H index was significantly correlative (P < 0.0001) with degree of NIH funding at a given institution. H index was not significantly higher for those that attended medical school (P < 0.18), residency (P < 0.16), and fellowship (P < 0.16) at institutions with NIH funding to otolaryngology departments.ConclusionsH index is a bibliometric that can be used to assess scholarly impact. Otology and head and neck are the most scholarly subspecialists within otolaryngology. NIH funding to an individual’s medical school, residency, or fellowship of origin is not correlative with one’s scholarly impact, but current institutional affiliation and choice of subspecialty are.

Diversifying the Research Workforce as a Programmatic Priority for a Career Development Award Program at Duke University.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has prioritized efforts to increase diversity in the biomedical research workforce. NIH-funded institutional career development awards may serve as one mechanism to facilitate these efforts. In 2013, the Duke University KL2 program, an internal career development program funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, set a goal to increase the number of investigators from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups (UREGs) to ≥ 50% of KL2 awardees. From 2013 to 2019, 133 KL2 applications were received, 38% from UREG investigators. Of the 21 scholars selected, 10 (47.6%) were UREG investigators; all were Black/African American. This represents a threefold increase in the proportion of UREG applications and a sixfold increase in the proportion of UREG KL2 scholars compared with Duke's previous KL2 cycles (2003-2012), during which only 13% of applicants and 8.3% of funded scholars were UREGs. Of the 12 KL2 scholars (7 UREG) who completed the program, 5 have received NIH funding as principal investigators of an external K award or R01, and 4 of them are UREG investigators; this constitutes a post-KL2 NIH funding success rate of 57% (4/7) for UREG scholars. Achieving this programmatic priority was facilitated by institutional support, clear communication of goals to increase the proportion of UREG KL2 awardees, and intentional strategies to identify and support applicants. Strategies included targeted outreach to UREG investigators, partnerships with other institutional entities, structured assistance for investigators with preparing their applications, and a KL2 program structure addressing common barriers to success for UREG investigators, such as lack of consistent mentorship, protected research time, and peer support. The authors' experience suggests that KL2 and other internal career development programs may represent a scalable, national strategy to increase diversity in the biomedical research workforce.

Industry Payments and Their Association With Academic Influence in Total Joint Arthroplasty

BackgroundThe relationship between industry payments and academic influence, as measured by the Hirsch index (h-index) and number of publications, among adult reconstruction surgeons is not well characterized. The aims of the present study are to determine the relationship between an adult reconstruction surgeons’ academic influence and their relevant industry payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. MethodsAdult reconstruction surgeons were identified through the websites for the orthopedic surgery residency programs in the United States during the 2019-2020 academic year.Academic influence was approximated by each physician’s h-index and total number of publications. Industry payment data were obtained through the Open Payments Database, and NIH funding was determined through the NIH website. Mann-Whitney U testing and Spearman correlations were performed to examine relevant associations. ResultsSurgeons who received industry research payments had a higher mean h-index (16.1 vs 10.2, P < .001) and mean number of publications (79.1 vs 35.9, P < .001) than physicians who received no industry research payments. Surgeons receiving NIH funding had a higher mean h-index (48.1 vs 10.4, P < .001) and mean number of publications (294.5 vs 36.8, P < .001) than surgeons who did not receive NIH funding. There was no association between the average h-index (P = .668) and number of publications (P = .387) among adult reconstruction surgeons receiving industry nonresearch funding. Conclusionh-index and total publications do not seem to be associated with industry nonresearch payments in the field of total joint arthroplasty. Altogether, these data suggest that industry bias may not play a strong role in total joint arthroplasty.

The Modern Pediatric Departmental Chairperson: A Snapshot

This article was migrated. The article was not marked as recommended. Background: The departmental chairperson plays a critical role in academic medical centers. However, few data exist regarding the personal and professional backgrounds of the modern pediatric chairperson. Methods: Using public-facing websites and standard search engines, we conducted a cross-sectional review of pediatric chairpersons at medical schools ranked for research by US News and World Report in 2018. Data collected included demographics, education, previous titles, and research/professional experience. Results: A total of 90 chairpersons were examined. The median time as chairperson was 5 years (interquartile range (IQR) 2-8; maximum 26 years), while the median time since medical school graduation was 35 years (IQR 30-39; minimum 20 years). The three most common subspecialty backgrounds were infectious disease (16.7%), neonatology (16.7%), and general pediatrics (16.7%). Most (63.3%) had held major grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and 24.4% had current NIH funding. Chairpersons at institutions ranked in the top 50 by USNWR were more likely to have received NIH funding than other chairs (80.4% vs. 41.0%; p &lt; 0.001). The most common title held prior to becoming chairperson was division chief (42.2%), while 14.4% had served as interim chair and 5.6% as chairperson elsewhere. Only 29 chairpersons (32.2%) were women, with 14 (48.3%) being hired within the past 5 years. Conclusions: There is significant diversity among departmental chairpersons in regard to their backgrounds - but certain characteristics and professional experiences predominate. The current composition of departmental chairpersons does not reflect the gender composition of the pediatric workforce.

Gender Differences in Academic Rank and NIH Funding among Academic Maternal-Fetal Medicine Physicians in the United States.

This article evaluates gender differences in academic rank and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding among academic maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) physicians. This was a cross-sectional study of board-certified academic MFM physicians. Physicians were identified in July 2017 from the MFM fellowship Web sites. Academic rank and receipt of any NIH funding were compared by gender. Data on potential confounders were collected, including years since board certification, region of practice, additional degrees, number of publications, and h-index. We identified 659 MFM physicians at 72 institutions, 312 (47.3%) male and 347 (52.7%) female. There were 246 (37.3%) full, 163 (24.7%) associate, and 250 (37.9%) assistant professors. Among the 154 (23.4%) MFM physicians with NIH funding, 89 (57.8%) were male and 65 (42.2%) were female (p = 0.003). Adjusting for potential confounders, male MFM physicians were twice as likely to hold a higher academic rank than female MFM physicians (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.04 [95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.94], p < 0.001). There was no difference in NIH funding between male and female MFM physicians (aOR, 1.23 [0.79-1.92], p = 0.36). Compared with female academic MFM physicians, male academic MFM physicians were twice as likely to hold a higher academic rank but were no more likely to receive NIH funding.

644: Gender differences in academic rank and nih funding among academic maternal-fetal medicine physicians in the United States

To evaluate if there are gender differences in academic rank and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding among academic Maternal-Fetal medicine (MFM) physicians. This was a cross-sectional study of Board certified academic MFM physicians. Physicians were identified in July 2017 from the websites of academic institutions in the U.S. with MFM fellowship programs. Academic rank and NIH funding were compared by gender. Data on potential confounders were collected including years since Board certification, region of practice, additional degrees (PhD or Masters degree), number of publications, and h-index (a metric of scholarly productivity that combines the number of publications with the number of times the publications have been cited). Categorical variables were compared with the Chi-square test of independence, nonparametric continuous variables were compared using Kruskal-Wallis or Wilcoxon rank-sum as appropriate, and multivariate logistic regression was used to generate adjusted odds ratios. We identified 659 MFM physicians (312 (47.3%) male and 347 (52.7%) female) at 72 institutions. There were 246 (37.3%) full, 163 (24.7%) associate, and 250 (37.9%) assistant professors. Among the 154 (23.4%) MFM physicians with NIH funding, 89 (57.8%) were male and 65 (42.2%) were female (p=0.003). Adjusting for years since Board certification, NIH funding, region of practice, additional degrees, number of publications, and h-index, women were 51% less likely to be full professor versus male MFM physicians [aOR 0.49 (95% CI 0.29-0.84) p=0.009]. Adjusting for academic rank, years since Board certification, h-index, region of practice, additional degrees, and number of publications, there was no difference in NIH funding between male and female MFM physicians [aOR 1.28 (95% CI 0.8-2.3) p= 0.30]. When compared to male academic MFM physicians, female academic MFM physicians were equally likely to receive NIH funding yet 51% less likely to reach the rank of professor. Further efforts to identify and ameliorate disparities in academic promotion are needed in our specialty.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)

Trends in sinusitis research: a systematic review of extramural funding.

Innovation represents a core value of the American Rhinologic Society (ARS), with multiple efforts to promote research in the advancement rhinologic care. We therefore sought to identify trends in extramural sinusitis funding and underutilized sources of support to facilitate future efforts. A systematic review of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Tools (RePORTER) database (fiscal year 1993 to 2017) was completed with the search strategy: ("chronic sinusitis" OR rhinosinusitis). All identified studies were accepted for review, with comparison to ARS membership rolls to identify studies supported by ARS investigators. Foundation awards were surveyed to identify and characterize additional sources of support. The systematic review identified 958 projects receiving NIH funding, of which 120 remain active. The percentage of sinusitis-related awards and total funding relative to all NIH awards increased over the past 10 years (2006 to 2016) from 0.06% (8 / 9128) and 0.09% ($2,151,152 / $3,358,338,602) to 0.87% (86 / 9540) and 0.90% ($37,201,095 / $4,300,145,614). Among active studies, 9 investigators maintain membership in the ARS and serve as principal investigator or project leader in 12 (10%) studies. ARS investigators received the greatest number of awards from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disrders (n = 8,66.7%), while only receiving 2.2% of awarded funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ($607,500/$26,873,022), the largest source of awards for sinusitis research. Support for sinusitis research is significantly growing, with the largest source of active funding not being fully utilized by members of the ARS. Further efforts to promote funding priorities among extramural sources is necessary to facilitate increased funding for ARS member initiatives.

Is Formal Research Training Associated With Academic Success in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery?

Pursuing promotion in academic rank and seeking funded research opportunities are core elements of academic practice. Our purpose was to assess whether formal research training influences academic rank or National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding among full-time academic oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMSs). We performed a cross-sectional study of full-time academic OMSs in the United States. The primary predictor variable was completion of formal research training, defined as a research fellowship or advanced non-clinical doctoral research degree (PhD, DMSc, DPH, DPhil, ScD). The outcomes measures were current academic rank and successful acquisition of NIH funding (yes vs no). Other study variables included MD degree, clinical fellowship training, years since training completion, and Hirsch index (H-index), a measure of academic productivity. We computed the descriptive, bivariate, and multiple regression models and set P≤.05 as significant. A total of 299 full-time academic OMSs were included in the study sample. Of the 299 OMSs, 41 (13.7%) had had formal research training. Surgeons with formal research training had a greater mean interval since completion of training (P = 0.01) and had a greater mean H-index (P = 0.02). Formal research training was not associated with academic rank (P=.10) but was associated with an increased likelihood of receiving NIH funding (P<.001). In a multiple logistic regression model, after adjusting for years since completing training and H-index, formal research training was associated with an increased likelihood of obtaining NIH funding (odds ratio, 3.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.15 to 9.00; P=.03). Among academic OMSs, those with formal research training had greater success with obtaining NIH funding. However, formal research training did not appear to influence an OMS's current academic rank.

The Relationship Between OREF Grants and Future NIH Funding Success.

The Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation (OREF) is the leading specialty-specific nongovernmental organization providing orthopaedic funding in the United States. As extramural research funding has become increasingly difficult to acquire, one mission of the OREF is to support investigators to generate data needed to secure larger extramural funding from agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The objectives of this study were to evaluate the rate of translating OREF faculty-level grants into subsequent NIH funding and to determine if there are identifiable factors that increase the rate of converting an OREF grant into NIH funding. This is a retrospective review of OREF grants awarded to full-time faculty orthopaedic surgeons between 1994 and 2014. Grants were analyzed on the basis of award type and were categorized as basic science, clinical, or epidemiological. Sex, individual scholarly productivity, and publication experience were evaluated. All awardees were assessed for subsequent NIH funding using the NIH RePORTER web site. One hundred and twenty-six faculty-level OREF grants were awarded to 121 individuals. Twenty-seven OREF grant awardees (22%) received NIH funding at a mean of 6.3 years after OREF funding. Nineteen (46%) of 41 Career Development Grant winners later received NIH funding compared with 10 (12%) of 85 other award winners. OREF grants for basic science projects were awarded more often (58%) and were more than 4 times as likely to result in NIH funding than non-basic science projects (odds ratio, 4.70 [95% confidence interval, 1.66 to 13.33]; p = 0.0036). Faculty who later received NIH funding had higher scholarly productivity and publication experience (p < 0.05). The OREF grant awardee conversion rate of 22% and, particularly, the 46% for Career Development Grant winners compares favorably with the overall NIH funding success rate (18% in 2014). Faculty-level OREF grants appear to achieve their purpose of identifying and supporting researchers who aim to secure subsequent federal funding. The goal of this study is to examine how successful faculty who have obtained OREF grants have been in securing NIH funding later in their careers. Although subsequent accrual of NIH funding is not the only goal of OREF funding, it can be used as an important benchmark to assess the development of orthopaedic clinician-scientists.

Development and testing of a database of NIH research funding of AAPM members: A report from the AAPM Working Group for the Development of a Research Database (WGDRD).

To produce and maintain a database of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) members, to perform a top-level analysis of these data, and to make these data (hereafter referred to as the AAPM research database) available for the use of the AAPM and its members. NIH-funded research dating back to 1985 is available for public download through the NIH exporter website, and AAPM membership information dating back to 2002 was supplied by the AAPM. To link these two sources of data, a data mining algorithm was developed in Matlab. The false-positive rate was manually estimated based on a random sample of 100 records, and the false-negative rate was assessed by comparing against 99 member-supplied PI_ID numbers. The AAPM research database was queried to produce an analysis of trends and demographics in research funding dating from 2002 to 2015. A total of 566 PI_ID numbers were matched to AAPM members. False-positive and -negative rates were respectively 4% (95% CI: 1-10%, N=100) and 10% (95% CI: 5-18%, N=99). Based on analysis of the AAPM research database, in 2015 the NIH awarded $USD 110M to members of the AAPM. The four NIH institutes which historically awarded the most funding to AAPM members were the National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. In 2015, over 85% of the total NIH research funding awarded to AAPM members was via these institutes, representing 1.1% of their combined budget. In the same year, 2.0% of AAPM members received NIH funding for a total of $116M, which is lower than the historic mean of $120M (in 2015 USD). A database of NIH-funded research awarded to AAPM members has been developed and tested using a data mining approach, and a top-level analysis of funding trends has been performed. Current funding of AAPM members is lower than the historic mean. The database will be maintained by members of the Working group for the development of a research database (WGDRD) on an annual basis, and is available to the AAPM, its committees, working groups, and members for download through the AAPM electronic content website. A wide range of questions regarding financial and demographic funding trends can be addressed by these data. This report has been approved for publication by the AAPM Science Council.

Scholarly Productivity and National Institutes of Health Funding of Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research Grant Recipients

BACKGROUND The Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER) grant program provides fellows and junior faculty members with grant support to stimulate their careers. The authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of recipients of FAER grants since 1987. METHODS Recipients were identified in the FAER alumni database. Each recipient's affiliation was identified using an Internet search (keyword anesthesiology). The duration of activity, publications, publication rate, citations, citation rate, h-index, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for each recipient were obtained using the Scopus (Elsevier, USA) and NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (National Institutes of Health, USA) databases. RESULTS Three hundred ninety-seven individuals who received 430 FAER grants were analyzed, 79.1% of whom currently hold full-time academic appointments. Recipients published 19,647 papers with 548,563 citations and received 391 NIH grants totaling $448.44 million. Publications, citations, h-index, the number of NIH grants, and amount of support were dependent on academic rank and years of activity (P < 0.0001). Recipients who acquired NIH grants (40.3%) had greater scholarly output than those who did not. Recipients with more publications were also more likely to secure NIH grants. Women had fewer publications and lower h-index than men, but there were no gender-based differences in NIH funding. Scholarly output was similar in recipients with MD and PhD degrees versus those with MD degrees alone, but recipients with MD and PhD degrees were more likely to receive NIH funding than those with MDs alone. CONCLUSION Most FAER alumni remain in academic anesthesiology and have established a consistent record of scholarly output that appears to exceed reported productivity for average faculty members identified in previous studies.