Search

Background: Evaluating the research productivity of cardiothoracic surgery residents during their training and early career is crucial for tracking their academic development. To this end, the training pathway of residents and the characteristics of their program in relation to their productivity were evaluated., Methods: Alumni lists from integrated 6-year thoracic surgery (I-6) and traditional thoracic surgery residency programs were collected. A Python script was used to search PubMed for publications and the iCite database for citations from each trainee. Publications during a 20-year time span were stratified by the year of publication in relation to the trainee's graduation from thoracic surgery residency. Trainees were analyzed by training program type, institutional availability of a cardiothoracic surgery T32 training grant, and protected academic development time., Results: A total of 741 cardiothoracic surgery graduates (I-6, 70; traditional, 671) spanning 1971 to 2021 from 57 programs published >23,000 manuscripts. I-6 trainees published significantly more manuscripts during medical school and residency compared with traditional trainees. Trainees at institutions with cardiothoracic surgery T32 training grants published significantly more manuscripts than those at non-T32 institutions (13 vs 9; P = .0048). I-6 trainees published more manuscripts at programs with dedicated academic development time compared with trainees at programs without protected time (22 vs 9; P = .004)., Conclusions: I-6 trainees publish significantly more manuscripts during medical school and residency compared with their traditional colleagues. Trainees at institutions with T32 training grants and dedicated academic development time publish a higher number of manuscripts than trainees without those opportunities., (Copyright © 2024 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We examined trainees in surgery and internal medicine who received National Institutes of Health (NIH) F32 postdoctoral awards to determine their success rates in obtaining future NIH funding., Background: Trainees participate in dedicated research years during residency (surgery) and fellowship (internal medicine). They can obtain an NIH F32 grant to fund their research time and have structured mentorship., Methods: We collected NIH F32 grants (1992-2021) for Surgery Departments and Internal Medicine Departments from NIH RePORTER, an online database of NIH grants. Nonsurgeons and noninternal medicine physicians were excluded. We collected demographic information on each recipient, including gender, current specialty, leadership positions, graduate degrees, and any future NIH grants they received. A Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous variables, and a χ 2 test was utilized to analyze categorical variables. An alpha value of 0.05 was used to determine significance., Results: We identified 269 surgeons and 735 internal medicine trainees who received F32 grants. A total of 48 surgeons (17.8%) and 339 internal medicine trainees (50.2%) received future NIH funding ( P < 0.0001). Similarly, 24 surgeons (8.9%) and 145 internal medicine trainees (19.7%) received an R01 in the future ( P < 0.0001). Surgeons who received F32 grants were more likely to be department chair or division chiefs ( P =0.0055 and P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Surgery trainees who obtain NIH F32 grants during dedicated research years are less likely to receive any form of NIH funding in the future compared with their internal medicine colleagues who received F32 grants., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: 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., Questions/purposes: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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)., Conclusion: 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., Clinical Relevance: 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., Competing Interests: Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2023 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Objective: National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for academic (noncardiac) thoracic surgeons at the top-140 NIH-funded institutes in the United States was assessed. We hypothesized that thoracic surgeons have difficulty in obtaining NIH funding in a difficult funding climate., Methods: The top-140 NIH-funded institutes' faculty pages were searched for noncardiac thoracic surgeons. Surgeon data, including gender, academic rank, and postfellowship training were recorded. These surgeons were then queried in NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results for their funding history. Analysis of the resulting grants (1980-2019) included grant type, funding amount, project start/end dates, publications, and a citation-based Grant Impact Metric to evaluate productivity., Results: A total of 395 general thoracic surgeons were evaluated with 63 (16%) receiving NIH funding. These 63 surgeons received 136 grants totaling $228 million, resulting in 1772 publications, and generating more than 50,000 citations. Thoracic surgeons have obtained NIH funding at an increasing rate (1980-2019); however, they have a low percentage of R01 renewal (17.3%). NIH-funded thoracic surgeons were more likely to have a higher professorship level. Thoracic surgeons perform similarly to other physician-scientists in converting K-Awards into R01 funding., Conclusions: Contrary to our hypothesis, thoracic surgeons have received more NIH funding over time. Thoracic surgeons are able to fill the roles of modern surgeon-scientists by obtaining NIH funding during an era of increasing clinical demands. The NIH should continue to support this mission., (Copyright © 2021 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Obtaining National Institutes of Health funding for heart transplant research is becoming increasingly difficult, especially for surgeons. We sought to determine the impact of National Institutes of Health-funded cardiac transplantation research over the past 30 years., Methods: National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results was queried for R01s using 10 heart transplant-related terms. Principal Investigator, total grant funding amount, number of publications, and citations of manuscripts were collected. A citation-based Grant Impact Metric was assigned to each grant: sum of citations for each manuscript normalized by the funding of the respective grant (per $100K). The department and background degree(s) (MD, PhD, MD/PhD) for each funded Principal Investigator were identified from institutional faculty profiles., Results: A total of 321 cardiac transplantation R01s totaling $723 million and resulting in 6513 publications were analyzed. Surgery departments received more grants and more funding dollars to study cardiac transplantation than any other department (n = 115, $249 million; Medicine: n = 93, $208 million; Pathology: 26, $55 million). Surgeons performed equally well compared with all other Principal Investigators with respect to Grant Impact Metric (15.1 vs 20.6; P = .19) and publications per $1 million (7.5 vs 6.8; P = .75). Finally, all physician-scientists (MDs) have a significantly higher Grant Impact Metric compared with nonclinician researchers (non-MDs) (22.3 vs 16.3; P = .028)., Conclusions: Surgeon-scientists are equally productive and impactful compared with nonsurgeons despite decreasing funding rates at the National Institutes of Health and greater pressure from administrators to increase clinical productivity., (Copyright © 2020 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for cardiac surgeons, hypothesizing they are at a disadvantage in obtaining funding owing to intensive clinical demands., Methods: Cardiac surgeons (adult/congenital) currently at the top 141 NIH-funded institutions were identified using institutional websites. The NIH funding history for each cardiac surgeon was queried using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER). Total grant funding, publications, and type was collected. Academic rank, secondary degrees, and fellowship information was collected from faculty pages. Grant productivity was calculated using a validated grant impact metric., Results: A total of 818 academic cardiac surgeons were identified, of whom 144 obtained 293 NIH grants totaling $458 million and resulting in 6694 publications. We identified strong associations between an institution's overall NIH funding rank and the number of cardiac surgeons, NIH grants to cardiac surgeons, and amount of NIH funding to cardiac surgeons (P < .0001 for all). The majority of NIH funding to cardiac surgeons is concentrated in the top quartile of institutions. Cardiac surgeons had a high conversion rates from K awards (mentored development awards) to R01s (6 of 14; 42.9%). Finally, we demonstrate that the rate of all NIH grants awarded to cardiac surgeons has increased, driven primarily by P and U (collaborative project) grants., Conclusions: NIH-funded cardiac surgical research has had a significant impact over the last 3 decades. Aspiring cardiac surgeon-scientists may be more successful at top quartile institutions owing to better infrastructure and mentorship., (Copyright © 2019 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Ruth L. Kirschstein Institutional National Research Service Award (T32) provides institutions with financial support to prepare trainees for careers in academic medicine. In 1990, the Cardiac Surgery Branch of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) was replaced by T32 training grants, which became crucial sources of funding for cardiothoracic (CT) surgical research. We hypothesized that T32 grants would be valuable for CT surgery training and yield significant publications and subsequent funding., Methods: Data on all trainees (past and present) supported by CT T32 grants at two institutions were obtained (T32), along with information on trainees from two similarly sized programs without CT T32 funding (Non-T32). Data collected were publicly available and included publications, funding, degrees, fellowships, and academic rank. Non-surgery residents and residents who did not pursue CT surgery were excluded., Results: Out of 76 T32 trainees and 294 Non-T32 trainees, data on 62 current trainees or current CT surgeons (T32: 42 vs Control: 20) were included. Trainees who were supported by a CT T32 grant were more likely to pursue CT surgery after residency (T32: 40% [30/76] vs Non-T32: 7% [20/294], P < .0001), publish manuscripts during residency years (P < .0001), obtain subsequent NIH funding (T32: 33% [7/21] vs Non-T32: 5% [1/20], P = .02), and pursue advanced fellowships (T32: 41% [9/22] vs Non-T32: 10% [2/20], P = .02)., Conclusions: T32 training grants supporting CT surgery research are vital to develop academic surgeons. These results support continued funding by the NHLBI to effectively develop and train the next generation of academic CT surgeons., (Copyright © 2017 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Obtaining National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding over the last 10 years has become increasingly difficult due to a decrease in the number of research grants funded and an increase in the number of NIH applications., Study Design: National Institutes of Health funding amounts and success rates were compared for all disciplines using data from NIH, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), and Blue Ridge Medical Institute. Next, all NIH grants (2006 to 2016) with surgeons as principal investigators were identified using the National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (NIH RePORTER), and a grant impact score was calculated for each grant based on the publication's impact factor per funding amount. Linear regression and one-way ANOVA were used for analysis., Results: The number of NIH grant applications has increased by 18.7% (p = 0.0009), while the numbers of funded grants (p < 0.0001) and R01s (p < 0.0001) across the NIH have decreased by 6.7% and 17.0%, respectively. The mean success rate of funded grants with surgeons as principal investigators (16.4%) has been significantly lower than the mean NIH funding rate (19.2%) (p = 0.011). Despite receiving only 831 R01s during this time period, surgeon scientists were highly productive, with an average grant impact score of 4.9 per $100,000, which increased over the last 10 years (0.15 ± 0.05/year, p = 0.02). Additionally, the rate of conversion of surgeon scientist-mentored K awards to R01s from 2007 to 2012 was 46%., Conclusions: Despite declining funding over the last 10 years, surgeon scientists have demonstrated increasing productivity as measured by impactful publications and higher success rates in converting early investigator awards to R01s., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)