The Academic Scholar Award of the American Association of Plastic Surgeons: the first 20 years

A Ten-Year Analysis of Recent National Institutes of Health Funding for Anesthesiology Research in United States Medical Schools

OBJECTIVES

The characteristics of recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding to anesthesiology researchers in United States (US) medical schools have not been systematically quantified. NIH funding to cardiac anesthesiologists has also not been estimated. The author conducted an internet-based analysis of NIH awards to anesthesiology researchers from 2011-2020 to identify the types, duration of funding, and amount of grants, and the terminal degree(s), faculty rank, gender, board certification status, and type of appointment of the grant recipients including those with an interest in cardiac anesthesiology.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Internet analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

NIH grants recipients.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

NIH grant recipients affiliated with anesthesiology departments were identified from the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research website. The number of grants, years of support, and total amount of funding were quantified for research project grants (R series), mentored career development awards (K series), and other grants (U and P series) using NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools. The terminal degree(s), faculty rank, gender, and type of appointment of grant recipients were identified using department web pages. American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) certification, National Board of Echocardiography Advanced Perioperative Transesophageal Echocardiography (TEE) certification, and previous or current Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER) awards to NIH grant recipients were obtained from each organization's website. A total of 532 researchers received 1250 grants with 3844 cumulative years of funding amounting to $1,676,482,440. R series grants accounted for three-quarters of all funding. PhDs were awarded more than one-half of NIH grants. MDs had lower median numbers of projects, R01 grants, and total R series grants than their colleagues with PhD or MD PhD degrees, but MDs received more K awards. One hundred ninety-eight MD and MD PhD NIH grant recipients were ABA diplomates. These physician-scientists received 26.0% and 53.1% of R and K series grants, respectively. Thirty physician-scientists also held TEE certification; these individuals with an interest in cardiac anesthesiology were awarded 4.8% of all NIH grants. Full Professors were awarded more than three-quarters of R grants and amassed more than $1.3 billion in funding, whereas assistant and associate professors received the majority of K series grants. Male investigators received greater median R grants but fewer median K awards than female researchers. One hundred-fifteen previous or current holders of FAER grants were identified; these individuals earned a total of 240 NIH awards totaling $357.7 million.

CONCLUSION

PhDs, Professors, and male researchers receive the majority of R01 and other R series grants to anesthesiology departments at US medical schools. Physician-scientists, including those interested in cardiac anesthesiology, are awarded a minority of R series grants. FAER continues to provide an important stimulus for subsequent NIH funding of physician-scientists in anesthesiology.

Characteristics and career outcomes of Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation research fellowship recipients

OBJECTIVE

The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation (NREF) provides ongoing competitive research fellowships for residents and young investigators. The authors sought to determine the characteristics and career tracks of award recipients.

METHODS

The authors analyzed characteristics and academic productivity parameters of NREF resident and young investigator awardees in the United States and Canada from 1983 to 2017. Data were extracted from the NREF database and online resources (Web of Science, NIH reporter).

RESULTS

In total, 224 research grants were awarded to 31 women (14%) and 193 men (86%) from 1983 to 2017. Neuro-oncology (36%) was the most common research category. Sixty percent of awardees were in training and most resident award winners were in postgraduate year 5 (37%). Forty-nine percent of all awardees had an additional postgraduate degree (PhD 39%, Master's 10%) with a significantly higher number of PhD recipients being from Canada in comparison to any US region (p = 0.024). The Northeastern and Southeastern United States were the regions with the highest and lowest numbers of award recipients, respectively. More than one-third (40%) of awardees came from institutions that have a National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Research Education Grant (NINDS R25) for neurosurgical training. Awardees from NINDS R25-funded programs were significantly more likely to go on to receive funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (40.4% vs 26.1%; p = 0.024). The majority of recipients (72%) who were no longer in training pursued fellowships, with a significant likelihood that fellowship subspecialty correlated with NREF research category (p < 0.001). Seventy-nine percent of winners entered academic neurosurgery practice, with 18% obtaining the position of chair. The median h-index among NREF winners was 11. NIH funding was obtained by 71 awardees (32%) with 36 (18%) being a principal investigator on an R01 grant from the NIH Research Project Grant Program.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of AANS/NREF research award recipients enter academics as fellowship-trained neurosurgeons, with approximately one-third obtaining NIH funding. Analysis of this unique cohort allows for identification of characteristics of academic success.

Analysis of the distribution and scholarly output from National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia (NIAA) research grants

The National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia (NIAA) was founded in 2008 to lead a UK strategy for developing academic anaesthesia. We aimed to assess the distribution of applications and quantify the academic returns of NIAA‐supported research grants, as this has hitherto not been analysed. We sought data on the baseline characteristics of all grant applicants and recipients. Every grant recipient from 2008 to 2015 was contacted to ascertain the status of their supported research projects. We also examined Google Scholar, Scopus^® database and InCites Journal Citation Reports for citation, author and journal metrics, respectively. In total, 495 research project applications were made, with 150 grants being awarded. Data on 121 out of 150 (80.7%) grant awards, accounting for £3.5 million, were collected, of which 91 completed studies resulted in 140 publications and 2759 citations. The median (IQR [range]) time to first or only publication was 3 (2–4 [0–9]) years. The overall cost per publication was £14,970 (£7457–£24,998 [£2212–£73,755]) and the cost per citation was £1515 (£323–£3785 [£70–£36,182]), with 1 (0–2 [0–8]) publication and 4 (0–25 [0–265]) citations resulting per grant. The impact factor of journals in which publications arose was 4.7 (2.5–6.2 [0–47.8]), with the highest impact arising from clinical and basic science studies, particularly in the fields of pain and peri‐operative medicine. Grants were most frequently awarded to clinical and basic science categories of study, but in terms of specialty, critical care medicine and peri‐operative medicine received the greatest number of grants. Superficially, there seemed a geographical disparity, with 123 (82%) grants being awarded to researchers in England, London receiving 48 (32%) of these. However, this was in proportion to the number of grant applications received by country or city of application, such that there was no significant difference in overall success rates. There was no significant difference in productivity in terms of publications and citations from grants awarded to each city. The 150 grants were awarded to 107 recipients (identified as the most senior applicant for each grant), 27 of whom received ≥ two grants. Recipients had a median career total of 21 (8–76 [0–254]) publications and 302 (44–1320 [0–8167]) citations, with an h‐index of 8 (3–22 [0–54]). We conclude that a key determinant of grant success is simply applying. This is the first study to report the distribution and scholarly output of individual anaesthesia research grants, particularly from a collaborative body such as the NIAA, and can be used as a benchmark to further develop academic anaesthesia in the UK and beyond.

National Institutes of Health Funding in Plastic Surgery: A Crisis?

BACKGROUND

Decreasing funding rates and increasing competition for National Institutes of Health research grants have prompted diverse interventions in various fields of biomedicine. Currently, the state of National Institutes of Health funding for plastic surgery research is poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to describe the portfolio of National Institutes of Health grants in academic plastic surgery.

METHODS

Plastic surgery faculty at integrated and independent programs were queried individually in the National Institutes of Health RePORTER database for grants awarded in 2014. Funding totals, mechanisms, and institutes were calculated. Abstracts were categorized by research type and field of interest. Characteristics of National Institutes of Health-funded principal investigators were elucidated.

RESULTS

Eight hundred sixty-one academic plastic surgeons at 94 programs were queried, and only 18 investigators (2.1 percent) were funded at 12 programs (12.8 percent). National Institutes of Health-funded investigators were predominately male (72 percent), fellowship-trained (61 percent), and aged 49.3 ± 7.8 years. A total of 20 awards amounted to $6,916,886, with an average award of $345,844 ± $222,909. Costs were primarily awarded through the R01 mechanism (77.2 percent). The top three National Institutes of Health institutes awarded 72.9 percent of the entire portfolio. Funding supported clinical (41.1 percent), translational (36.9 percent), and basic science (22.0 percent) research. Craniofacial (20.5 percent), hand (18.7 percent), and breast (16.2 percent) had the greatest funding.

CONCLUSIONS

Few programs and faculty drive the National Institutes of Health portfolio of plastic surgery research. These data suggest a tenuous funding situation that may be susceptible to future spending cuts. Future research is needed to identify barriers to National Institutes of Health funding procurement in academic plastic surgery.

National Institutes of Health Funding to Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery at U.S. Medical Schools

BACKGROUND

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest supporter of biomedical research in the U.S., yet its contribution to orthopaedic research is poorly understood. In this study, we analyzed the portfolio of NIH funding to departments of orthopaedic surgery at U.S. medical schools.

METHODS

The NIH RePORT (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools) database was queried for NIH grants awarded to departments of orthopaedic surgery in 2014. Funding totals were determined for award mechanisms and NIH institutes. Trends in NIH funding were determined for 2005 to 2014 and compared with total NIH extramural research funding. Funding awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments was compared with that awarded to departments of other surgical specialties in 2014. Characteristics of NIH-funded principal investigators were obtained from department web sites.

RESULTS

In 2014, 183 grants were awarded to 132 investigators at 44 departments of orthopaedic surgery. From 2005 to 2014, NIH funding increased 24.3%, to $54,608,264 (p = 0.030), but the rates of increase seen did not differ significantly from those of NIH extramural research funding as a whole (p = 0.141). Most (72.6%) of the NIH funding was awarded through the R01 mechanism, with a median annual award of $343,980 (interquartile range [IQR], $38,372). The majority (51.1%) of the total funds supported basic science research, followed by translational (33.0%), clinical (10.0%), and educational (5.9%) research. NIH-funded orthopaedic principal investigators were predominately scientists whose degree was a PhD (71.1%) and who were male (79.5%). Eleven NIH institutes were represented, with the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) providing the preponderance (74.2%) of the funding. In 2014, orthopaedic surgery ranked below the surgical departments of general surgery, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, otolaryngology, and urology in terms of NIH funding received.

CONCLUSIONS

The percentage increase of NIH funding to departments of orthopaedic surgery from 2005 to 2014 was not significantly greater than that of total NIH extramural research funding. Funding levels to orthopaedic surgery departments lag behind funding to departments of other surgical disciplines. Funding levels may not match the academic potential of orthopaedic faculty, and interventions may be needed to increase NIH grant procurement.

The American Association of Plastic Surgeons Recent History, with a Review of the Past

The American Association of Plastic Surgeons was founded in 1921 and is the oldest of the plastic surgery societies. It was born out of the enthusiasm of reconstructive surgeons who had recently increased in numbers and expanded the scope of their activities as a result of the challenges posed by battle-injured soldiers during World War I. Early meetings were small, focused exclusively on the head and neck, and often included live surgical demonstrations. The Association has grown in size and scope with time, but it has maintained its academic focus. This article focuses on the most recent 15 years of the Association's history, as prior publications have chronicled the history of the organization up to 2000. The organization has remained robust in the new millennium, with the national meetings being its most prominent activity. The format of the meetings has continually been improved to remain relevant and of interest to the membership and other attendees. The organization continues to support the development of young academic plastic surgeons through the Academic Scholars Program. It has established new programs such as the Constable Fellowship to support international exchange and has also sponsored two consensus conferences to help define standards of care in plastic surgery-related issues. The Association annually recognizes significant contributors to the field through the variety of awards that it bestows as well. The mission of the American Association of Plastic Surgeons is to provide scholarly leadership in plastic surgery, and the organization continues to successfully accomplish this mission.