Industry Funding Is Correlated With Publication Productivity of US Academic Radiation Oncologists

Gender Inequalities in Citations of Articles Published in High-Impact General Medical Journals: a Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Besides the number of publications, the number of citations is another key metric often used to compare researchers with each other. While women researchers tend to have fewer publications than their men colleagues, the data is scarce for the number of citations. We aimed to determine whether there is a gender gap in citations.

METHODS

We used Web of Science to retrieve the number of citations per year for all research articles and reviews published between January 2015 and December 2019 in fourteen high-impact general medical journals (impact factor > 5). We used Gender API to identify the gender of the first/last authors. We compared the results by gender using multivariable negative binomial regressions (adjusting for intra-cluster correlations within journals).

RESULTS

The gender of the first/last author was determined for 13,218/13,350 (99%) and 11,894/12,026 (99%) articles, respectively. The proportion of women among first/last authors was 40% and 29%, respectively. The median number of citations per year was 5 (IQR = 11.3) for women and 6.8 (IQR = 17.8) for men for first authors (IRR = 1.5 [95% CI = 1.3-1.8], p value < 0.001), and 6 (IQR = 12.4) and 7.5 (IQR = 17.4) for last authors (IRR = 1.3 [95% CI = 1.2-1.5], p value < 0.001). Articles whose first and last authors were women were the least cited and those whose first and last authors were men were the most cited.

CONCLUSION

In this cross-sectional study, we found that articles authored by women were cited less often than those authored by men. Further studies are needed to explore the reasons for these gender differences in article citations.

Financial conflicts of interest of physicians followed by neurosurgical journals on Twitter

BACKGROUND

Social media, particularly Twitter, has played an increasing role in networking and the dissemination of neurosurgical research. Despite extensive study on financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) influencing medical research, little is known about the function of conflicts of interest on social media and the influence they may have. In this study, we sought to evaluate the FCOI of physicians followed on Twitter by the top three neurosurgical journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed the FCOI of United States (US) physicians followed by the top three neurosurgical journals (Journal of Neurosurgery, World Neurosurgery, Neurosurgery) on Twitter. We determined the FCOIs of each physician using the Open Payments Search Tool located at https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov and summed the data between 2014 and 2021.

RESULTS

We examined 2651 Twitter accounts followed by the top three neurosurgical journals on Twitter and determined 705 (26.6%) belonged to US physicians. Of the 705 US physicians, 577 (81.8%) received general payments between 2014 and 2021. After excluding US physicians currently in residency or fellowship (n = 157), this percentage increased to 93.2% (n = 511/548). In total, nearly $70 million in general payments were made between 2014 and 2021.

CONCLUSION

These findings raise questions regarding the interaction between neurosurgical journals and the medical community on Twitter. This study may serve as the basis for future work on best practices for medical journals navigating their affiliations on Twitter.

Gender differences in the medical industries’ payments to physicians: a systematic review

Purpose

This paper aims to explore gender differences in payments made to physicians by the pharmaceutical and medical device industries via the performance of a systematic review of articles based on the Open Payments Database (OPD).

Design/methodology/approach

Three databases (Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed) were searched for articles published from September 30, 2014 to May 10, 2019, using two search terms: “Sunshine Act” and “Open Payments.” The systematic review is reported according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Findings

The search identified 359 abstracts. Thirty-nine articles were selected for full review, and 17 of these met the inclusion criteria. Although the articles considered are based on the same database, they adopt diverse approaches and analyses are conducted in different ways. A substantial proportion of the studies show total payments from the two industries to be higher for male physicians than for female physicians. However, a few exceptions exist, higher female mean or median values occurring for payments involving research, ownership, honoraria, grants, royalties/licenses and travel/lodgings. Also, in the case of obstetric–gynecological specializations, a higher proportion of women than men are shown to cooperate with the industries.

Originality/value

There is gender inequality in terms of industries’ funding for doctors. While analyses of secondary OPD data show that a gender inequality exists, they do not provide an understanding of why this occurs. However, from the exceptions identified, it can be speculated that this phenomenon is connected with greater adherence to ethical standards on the part of female physicians and/or the likelihood that fewer opportunities for industrial cooperation are extended to them.

Downstream funding success of early career researchers for resubmitted versus new applications: A matched cohort

Background

Early career researchers face a hypercompetitive funding environment. To help identify effective intervention strategies for early career researchers, we examined whether first-time NIH R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful at obtaining any R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than original, unfunded applicants who submitted new NIH applications, and we examined whether underrepresented minority (URM) applicants differentially benefited from resubmission. Our observational study is consistent with an NIH working group’s recommendations to develop interventions to encourage resubmission.

Methods and findings

First-time applicants with US medical school academic faculty appointments who submitted an unfunded R01 application between 2000–2014 yielded 4,789 discussed and 7,019 not discussed applications. We then created comparable groups of first-time R01 applicants (resubmitted original R01 application or submitted new NIH applications) using optimal full matching that included applicant and application characteristics. Primary and subgroup analyses used generalized mixed models with obtaining any NIH R01 funding within 3 and 5 years as the two outcomes. A gamma sensitivity analysis was performed. URM applicants represented 11% and 12% of discussed and not discussed applications, respectively.

First-time R01 applicants resubmitting their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful obtaining R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than applicants submitting new applications—for both discussed and not discussed applications: discussed within 3 years (OR 4.17 [95 CI 3.53, 4.93]) and 5 years (3.33 [2.82–3.92]); and not discussed within 3 years (2.81 [2.52, 3.13]) and 5 years (2.47 [2.22–2.74]). URM applicants additionally benefited within 5 years for not discussed applications.

Conclusions

Encouraging early career researchers applying as faculty at a school of medicine to resubmit R01 applications is a promising potential modifiable factor and intervention strategy. First-time R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application had log-odds of obtaining downstream R01 funding within 3 and 5 years 2–4 times higher than applicants who did not resubmit their original application and submitted new NIH applications instead. Findings held for both discussed and not discussed applications.

Sex Differences in Academic Productivity Across Academic Ranks and Specialties in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Despite equal numbers of men and women entering medical school, women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic medicine and receive less compensation and research funding. Citation-related publication productivity metrics, such as the h-index, are increasingly used for hiring, salary, grants, retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. Exploring sex differences in these metrics across academic medicine provides deeper insight into why differences are observed in career outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically examine the available literature on sex differences in h-index of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank.

DATA SOURCES

Medical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used.

STUDY SELECTION

A PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) selection protocol was used to find observational studies that published h-indexes for faculty physicians that were stratified by sex. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, retracted, or unavailable online. Ultimately, 14 of 786 studies (1.78%) met the inclusion criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data from 9 studies across 16 specialties were examined using weighted random-effects meta-analyses. Five studies were excluded because of overlapping specialties with another study or because they were missing appropriate statistics for the meta-analysis. Four of these studies were included in qualitative synthesis to bring the total to 13 studies.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary study outcome was the h-index.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 10 665 North American unique academic physicians across 9 different studies from the years 2009 to 2018. Of the 10 665 physicians, 2655 (24.89%) were women. Summary effect sizes for mean h-indexes of men and women and mean h-index difference between men and women were determined for all faculty physicians and at each academic rank. Overall, female faculty had lower h-indexes than male faculty (mean difference, -4.09; 95% CI, -5.44 to -2.73; P < .001). When adjusting for academic rank, female faculty still had lower h-indexes than male faculty at the ranks of assistant professor (mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.72; P < .001), associate professor (mean difference, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.40 to -0.78; P = .002), and professor (mean difference, -3.41; 95% CI, -6.24 to -0.58; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, women had lower h-indexes than men across most specialties and at all academic ranks, but it is unclear why these differences exist. These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of lower h-indexes in women and that interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians regardless of sex.

Effects of institutional policies and characteristics on research productivity at Vietnam science and technology universities

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of institutional research promoting policies and organizational characteristics on research productivity in Vietnam universities. The authors employed a dataset surveying faculty staff from 115 universities across the country and used multivariate data analysis to analyse data and test hypotheses. It was found that institutional characteristics such as size, time in operation and advantageous location were positively associated with research productivity. Specifically, universities located in the big cities with longer time in operation and larger size had higher level of international publication. Institutional policies such as management and infrastructure had a positive impact on research productivity while human resource policies had a positive impact on faculty research outcomes. The study also provided some suggestions to promote research productivity of Vietnam universities.

Dissecting the Financial Relationship Between Industry and Academic Neurosurgery

BACKGROUND

Established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Open Payments Database (OPD) has reported industry payments to physicians since August 2013.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the frequency, type, and value of payments received by academic neurosurgeons in the United States over a 5-yr period (2014-2018).

METHODS

The OPD was queried for attending neurosurgeons from all neurosurgical training programs in the United States (n = 116). Information from the OPD was analyzed for the entire cohort as well as for comparative subgroup analyses, such as career stage, subspecialty, and geographic location.

RESULTS

Of all identified neurosurgeons, 1509 (95.0%) received some payment from industry between 2014 and 2018 for a total of 106 171 payments totaling $266 407 458.33. A bimodal distribution was observed for payment number and total value: 0 to 9 (n = 438) vs > 50 (n = 563) and 0-$1000 (n = 418) vs >$10 000 (n = 653), respectively. Royalty/License was the most common type of payment overall (59.6%; $158 723 550.57). The median number (40) and value ($8958.95) of payments were highest for mid-career surgeons. The South-Central region received the most money ($117 970 036.39) while New England received the greatest number of payments (29 423). Spine surgeons had the greatest median number (60) and dollar value ($20 551.27) of payments, while pediatric neurosurgeons received the least (8; $1108.29). Male neurosurgeons received a greater number (31) and value ($6395.80) of payments than their female counterparts (11, $1643.72).

CONCLUSION

From 2014 to 2018, payments to academic neurosurgeons have increased in number and value. Dollars received were dependent on geography, career stage, subspecialty and gender.

Academic Rhinologists' Online Rating and Perception, Scholarly Productivity, and Industry Payments

INTRODUCTION

The emergence of popular online rating websites, social media platforms, and public databases for industry payments and scholarly outputs provide a complete physician online presence which may guide choice and satisfaction.

METHODS

Websites of all U.S. otolaryngology academic institutions were queried for fellowship-trained rhinologists. Additional well-known and academically active rhinologists were identified by the senior author. Online ratings and comments were collected from Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, and RateMD websites, and weighted rating scores (RS) were calculated on a 1-5 scale.

RESULTS

A total of 210 rhinologists with 16 ± 9 years of practice were included, where 6901 online ratings (33 ± 47 per rhinologist) provided an average RS of 4.3 ± 0.6. RS was not different according to gender (p = 0.58), geographic quartile (p = 0.48), social media presence (p = 0.41), or attending top-ranked medical school (p = 0.86) or residency programs (p = 0.89). Years of practice negatively correlated with RS (R = -0.22, p<0.01), and academic ranking significantly influenced RS, with professors, associate professors, and assistant professors scoring 4.1 ± 0.6, 4.3 ± 0.4, and 4.4 ± 0.6, respectively (p = 0.03). Of the 3,304 narrative comments analyzed (3.1 ± 11.6 per rhinologist), 76% (positive) and 7% (negative) had elements of clinical knowledge/outcomes, 56% (positive) and 7% (negative) of communication/bedside manner, and 9% (positive) and 7% (negative) of office staff, cost, and wait-time. All negative comment categories had moderate negative correlation with RS, while positive comment categories regarding knowledge/competence and bedside manner weakly correlated with higher RS. Number of publications (48 ± 54) positively correlated with 2018 industry payments ($11,384 ± $19,025) among those receiving industry compensation >$300 (n = 113). Attending a top-ranked medical school was associated with higher industry payments (p<0.01) and H-index (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Academic rhinologists' online RS was not associated with gender, geographic location, or attending a top-ranked training program, and their scholarly productivity was significantly correlated with total industry payments.

Which Factors Affect the Completion and Publication of Dental Implant Trials?

PURPOSE

Clinical decision making in implant dentistry may be vulnerable to industry influence. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with the completion and publication of implant trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of dental implant trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. The predictor variables were composed of a set of study characteristics including study design (investigational or observational), topic, sample size (≤50 or >50 participants), investigator specialty (periodontics, oral-maxillofacial surgery, prosthodontics, general/implantology, or other), study site (United States or international), and industry funding (yes or no). The outcome variables were time to study completion and time to publication. Reverse Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to determine time-to-event probabilities, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify factors associated with study completion and publication.

RESULTS

A total of 317 trials were included in the final sample. The median trial duration was 2.3 years, and the median time from completion to publication was 1.9 years. Compared with periodontist-led trials, oral and maxillofacial surgeon-led trials had greater success with publication (publication rate, 73.0% vs 54.4%; P = .01) but were less likely to be conducted in the United States (US site present, 8.8% vs 46.0%; P < .01). Trials that received industry funding were able to extend their operations by an average period of 1.2 years (P < .01). The projected trial completion rate at 5 years was 78.0%, and the projected publication rate 5 years after completion was 94.0%. Multivariate Cox regression showed that both industry-funded trials (hazard ratio, 0.66; P < .01) and pharmacologic studies (hazard ratio, 1.69; P = .02) were significantly associated with the completion rate. Among completed trials, neither industry sponsorship nor any other factor influenced the publication rate over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Trials that were industry funded had lower rates of completion but not publication. Future efforts should explore the reasons for research waste and improve US oral and maxillofacial surgeon involvement in clinical trial research.

Evaluation of Sex Distribution of Industry Payments Among Radiation Oncologists

IMPORTANCE

Industry relationships are an important measure of professional advancement; however, the association between physician sex and industry payments in radiation oncology has not been described.

OBJECTIVE

To update the trends in the sex distribution of industry payments in radiation oncology.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted between July 1, 2018, and August 31, 2018. It used the publicly available Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments program and CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File databases to obtain 2016 industry payment data for US radiation oncologists who reported receiving industry funding in that year (n = 3052). Total monetary value, number of payments, and median payment amounts were determined for each sex in the following categories: research, consulting, honoraria, industry grants, royalty or license, and services other than consulting.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Industry payment amounts among 3052 radiation oncologists who reported receiving payments in 2016; association of median payment with the types of payment by sex.

RESULTS

Of the total 4483 radiation oncologists who practiced in 2016, 1164 (25.9%) were female and 3319 (74.0%) were male. Industry payments were distributed among 3052 radiation oncologists (68.1%), of whom 715 (23.4%) were female and 2337 (76.6%) were male. The proportion of female radiation oncologists who received at least 1 industry payment was 61.4% (715 of 1164), whereas the proportion of their male counterparts was 70.4% (2337 of 3319). Across all payment types, female radiation oncologists received a smaller percentage of total industry funding than the percentage of female physicians represented in each category. The median payment value was smaller for female radiation oncologists in consulting (-$1000; 95% CI, -$1966.67 to $100.63; P = .005) and honoraria (-$500; 95% CI, -$1071.43 to $0; P = .007). This trend was also observed in research payments, but was not statistically significant (-$135.02; 95% CI, -$476.93 to $6.88; P = .08). Of the $1 347 509 royalty or license payments made to 72 physicians, none was for female radiation oncologists.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Distribution of industry payments appears to show sex disparity in industry relationships among radiation oncologists; this observation warrants further investigation to determine the underlying reasons and provide avenues for increased parity.

Shining Sunlight on Industry Payments in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: The Sunshine Act

PURPOSE

To characterize industry payments to oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMSs) and to determine the accuracy of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments Databases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of the CMS General and Research Payments Databases in 2016 for clinicians categorized as OMSs. General payments include consulting fees, honoraria, gifts, entertainment, food and beverage, travel and education, and others. Research payments include payments associated with research. Variables collected included number of OMSs who received payments, type of and number of payments, total amount paid, geographic distribution, and proportion of funding allotted to research. The accuracy of payee categorization was determined by verifying a random selection of 5% of those categorized as "OMS" in the database with publicly available data. To assess impact on research productivity, the h-index of research payment recipients was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 6,720 OMSs received industry compensation in 2016. Accuracy was 88% in the General Payments Database and 50% in the Research Payments Database. OMSs received 28,456 general payments totaling $5,971,800.79. The average number of payments and the average amount per payment were 4.27 and $1,597.60, respectively. The CMS reported total research payments of $23,592.17. The 4 verified OMSs received a total of $18,500 in research payments and had an average h-index of 3.25 (range, 0 to 8). The most common payments made were for food and beverage (80.2%), travel and lodging (5.83%), education (3.91%), compensation for services other than consulting (3.1%), and gifts (3.03%). Research accounted for 0.07% of all payments.

CONCLUSION

Although industry payments to OMSs were common, research funding was negligible. Most industry value transfers were related to food and beverage or travel and lodging. Clinicians were accurately classified in the CMS General Payments Database but not in the Research Payments Database.