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

Identifying Predictors of Successful Conversion from OREF Grants to Extramural Federal Funding Among Orthopaedic Surgeons

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal diseases are a major contributor to global human disability, but research in this area of medicine contends with chronic underfunding in the United States, receiving <2% of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget. The Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation (OREF) serves as a vital nongovernmental organization, providing essential support for orthopaedic research. This study investigated the translation of various OREF grants into successful extramural federal funding discerning the clinician demographics and OREF award characteristics associated with increased chances of securing federal grants.

METHODS

We included OREF data from 1994 to 2020, and federal funding from the NIH, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) was queried using publicly available databases: the NIH RePORTER, the DoD Defense Technical Information Center, the NSF search engine, and the AHRQ search engine. Clinician demographics and training were collected from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons roster and institution departmental websites. The successful translation of OREF grants into federal awards was assessed based on clinician gender, training, and specialty, as well as OREF grant mechanisms and characteristics; multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the likelihood of federal translation based on these predictor variables.

RESULTS

Three hundred and forty-eight OREF grants were awarded to 319 different clinicians, 23.5% of whom successfully translated their award into a federal grant. Notably, recipients of the OREF Career Development Grant (CDG) demonstrated a 48.4% translation rate to federal funding. The federal return on investment for all of the OREF grants averaged 503%, translating approximately $34 million in OREF awards into >$200 million in federal funding. Logistic regression revealed that recipients who received CDG funding, as well as orthopaedic oncologists, were more than 3 times as likely to secure federal funding than those who received grants with other mechanisms and those in other subspecialties.

CONCLUSIONS

OREF fills a vital role in supporting budding orthopaedic research careers, ensuring the field's competitiveness for federal awards on a national scale. The success rates, particularly for CDG recipients, highlight OREF's effectiveness in identifying promising surgeon-scientists.

Trend Analysis of Industry-Sponsored Research Funding and Research Productivity in Orthopaedic Surgery Using the Open Payments Database

Introduction Orthopedic surgery and industry work together in order to provide optimal patient care. The Open Payments Database (OPD), established in 2013, reports industry payments to physicians. This study analyzes the first five years of industry-sponsored research funding (ISRF) to orthopedic surgeons and examines research productivity's effect on ISRF. Methods The OPD was queried from 2014 to 2018 for research payments to orthopedic surgeons in the United States. H-indices and publication volume were queried using the Scopus database. The research payments were sub-categorized to surgeons in teaching hospitals, registered clinical trials, preclinical research, and domestic. Results Between 2014 and 2018, a total of $202.74 million in ISRF was made to 1718 orthopedic surgeons. The proportion of research payments associated with a registered clinical trial significantly increased from 9.62% of payments in 2014 to 42.19% of payments in 2018 (p=0.002). Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. ($20.77 million) contributed the largest value of payments to the greatest number of orthopedic surgeons (n=337). The total value of research payments increased by $3855 for every five-unit increase of a surgeon's H-index (p<0.001) and $762 for every five additional publications (p<0.001). Conclusion Orthopedic surgeons affiliated with a teaching hospital or clinical trial receive more ISRF. There may be a relationship between research productivity and ISRF.

Differences in Academic Qualifications for Leadership at Hand Surgery Fellowships in the United States

Objective

In the United States, orthopaedic, general, and plastic surgery hand fellowship programs train hand surgeons. Currently, differences in the academic qualifications of hand surgery fellowship directors (HSFDs) are unknown. This study compares the academic qualifications of HSFDs by specialty.

Methods

American Medical Association's Residency and Fellowship Database was queried for hand surgery fellowship training programs. Scholarly activity, academic characteristics, and training pedigrees were collected for each HSFD.

Results

Ninety-two HSFDs (73 orthopaedic surgeons, 17 plastic surgeons, 2 general surgeons) were identified. Most were male (87%) and Caucasian (82%). Mean age was 55 ± 11 years and most were trained in orthopaedic surgery (80%). Ten percent of orthopaedic hand surgery fellowship programs were run by a plastic surgeon HSFD, which was greater than 0% of plastic surgery hand fellowship programs run by an orthopaedic surgeon HSFD (p < 0.05). Mean H-index was 15 ± 9 from an average of 57 ± 47 publications. Orthopaedic and plastic surgeon HSFDs had similar levels of scholarly activity (p > 0.05). Age correlated with higher H-index values (r = 0.38, p < 0.001). More plastic surgeon HSFDs were trained by their top five fellowship programs than orthopaedic surgeon HSFDs (65 vs. 27%, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Ultimately, HSFDs have strong research backgrounds and similar characteristics despite disparate training pathways. Women and racial minority groups are largely underrepresented among leadership positions at hand surgery fellowships. These benchmarks can help inform future diversity initiatives.

Orthopedic surgeon-scientist representation is low among National Institutes of Health grants for rotator cuff research

Background

The purpose of this study is to characterize National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for rotator cuff research and evaluate the impact of orthopedic surgeons on this portfolio.

Methods

The NIH's Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results database was queried for "rotator cuff repair" or "rotator cuff tear" from the 2011 to 2021 fiscal years. Compound annual growth rates were calculated and grants were categorized by basic, clinical, or translational research. Funding totals were compared by Principal Investigator (PI) and grant characteristics.

Results

A total of 52 grants were awarded to 38 PIs between 2011 and 2021, totaling $40,156,859. Annual NIH funding for rotator cuff tear and rotator cuff repair increased by a Compound annual growth rate of 11.0% from 2011 to 2021, compared to 3.4% for the total NIH budget. Orthopedic surgeon-scientists received $9,208,212 (22.9%), most commonly through R01 (80.5%) and K08 (7.1%) mechanisms. No significant difference in funding was found by PI sex (P = .332), degree (P = .460), academic rank (P = .118), or researcher type (P = .227). Professors had a higher h-index than associate and assistant professors (P = .001). Orthopedic surgeon-scientists had a higher h-index (mean 36.3 ± 9.4) compared to clinician-scientists (mean 8.0 ± 1.4) and research-scientists (35.5 ± 40.7) (P = .044). Clinical topics receiving the highest funding were rehabilitation (23.9%), diagnosis, (22.3%) and surgical technique (14.8%). Orthopedic surgeon-scientists acquired funding for diagnosis (57.1%), rehabilitation (17.0%), and surgical technique (14.5%).

Discussion

While NIH funding for rotator cuff research is growing, orthopedic surgeon representation is low. Future studies should evaluate barriers to obtaining funding for orthopedic surgeon-scientists.

Analysis of Academic Accomplishments and Demographics for Elected Presidents of National Orthopedic Surgery Organizations in the United States

This study analyzed the academic accomplishments and demographics of elected presidents of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), American Orthopaedic Association (AOA), and American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS). Curriculum vitae and internet-based resources were reviewed to collect demographics, training characteristics, bibliometrics, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) research funding of contemporary presidents (1990-2020). Eighty presidents were included. Most presidents were men (97%), and 4% of presidents were non-White (3% Black and 1% Hispanic). Few had an additional graduate degree (4% MBA, 3% MS, 1% MPH, 1% PhD). Ten orthopedic surgery residency programs trained 47% of these presidents. Most had fellowship training (59%), and the top three were hand surgery (11%), pediatric orthopedics (11%), and adult reconstruction (10%). Twenty-nine presidents (36%) participated in a traveling fellowship. The mean age at appointment was 58±5 years, which was 27 years since residency graduation. The mean h-index was 36±23, resulting from 150±126 peer-reviewed manuscripts. Orthopedic surgery presidents had more peer-reviewed manuscripts (150±126) than chairs (73±81) and program directors (27±32) (P<.001). AOA presidents had the highest mean h-index (42±21) compared with AAOS (38±27) and ABOS (25±16) presidents (P=.035). Nineteen presidents had NIH funding (24%). More presidents had NIH funding in the AOA (39%) and AAOS (25%) than the ABOS (0%) (P=.007). Orthopedic surgery presidents possess high levels of scholarly output. AOA presidents had the highest h-index values and prevalence of NIH funding. Females and racial minorities remain underrepresented at the highest levels of leadership. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(1):e45-e51.].

Musculoskeletal health: an ecological study assessing disease burden and research funding

Background

Exacerbated by an aging population, musculoskeletal diseases are a chronic and growing problem in the United States that impose significant health and economic burdens. The objective of this study was to analyze the correlation between the burden of diseases and the federal funds assigned to health-related research through the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Methods

An ecological study design was used to examine the relationship between NIH research funding and disease burden for 60 disease categories. We used the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2019 to measure disease burden and the NIH Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC) data to identify 60 disease categories aligned with available GBD data. NIH funding data was obtained from the RCDC system and the NIH Office of Budget. Using linear regression models, we observed that musculoskeletal diseases were among the most underfunded (i.e., negative residuals from the model) with respect to disease burden.

Findings

Musculoskeletal diseases were underfunded, with neck pain being the most underfunded at only 0.83% of expected funding. Low back pain, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis were also underfunded at 13.88%, 35.08%, and 66.26%, respectively. Musculoskeletal diseases were the leading cause of years lived with disability and the third leading cause in terms of prevalence and disability-adjusted life years. Despite the increasing burden of these diseases, the allocation of NIH funding to the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) has remained low compared to other institutes.

Interpretation

Despite the increasing health burden and economic cost of $980 billion annually, the allocation of NIH funding to the NIAMS has remained low compared to other institutes. These findings suggest that the NIH may need to reassess its allocation of research funding to align with the current health challenges of our country. Furthermore, these clinically relevant observations highlight the need to increase research funding for musculoskeletal diseases and improve their prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.

Funding

No funding.

National Institutes of Health Funding to Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery at U.S. Medical Schools from 2015 to 2021

BACKGROUND

National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding of orthopaedic surgery departments has historically lagged behind that of other surgical disciplines. In this study, we present an updated analysis of NIH grants awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments at U.S. medical schools and an evaluation of the characteristics of NIH-funded principal investigators (PIs).

METHODS

The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database was queried for grants awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments in the 2015 to 2021 fiscal years. Funding totals were calculated for 4 categories: award mechanism, awarding institute, recipient institute, and PI. Trends in funding from 2015 to 2021 were determined and compared with the annual NIH budget. Funding awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments was compared with awards received by other surgical specialties in 2021. The characteristics of NIH-funded PIs and co-PIs were evaluated. Funding awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments in 2021 was compared with funding in 2014 as reported in a previous study.

RESULTS

In 2021, 287 grants were awarded to 187 PIs at 47 orthopaedic surgery departments for a total of $104,710,841, representing 0.4% of the overall NIH budget. The top 5 departments earned $41,750,321 (39.9%) of the total NIH funding for orthopaedic surgery. From 2015 to 2021, total funding increased by 79.7% (p < 0.001), but the rate of increase was not significantly different from that of the overall annual NIH budget (p = 0.469). In 2021, grants were most commonly awarded via the R01 mechanism (70.0% of total funding), with a median annual award of $397,144 (interquartile range [IQR], $335,017 to $491,248). The majority of grants (70.0%) supported basic science research, followed by translational (12.2%), clinical (9.4%), and educational (8.4%) research. NIH funding did not vary by the gender of the PI (p = 0.505), and the proportion of female PIs was significantly greater in 2021 than in 2014 (33.9% versus 20.5%, p = 0.009). Compared with other surgical departments, orthopaedic surgery departments ranked second-lowest in terms of the total NIH funding received in 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

NIH funding to orthopaedic surgery departments continues to be limited and lags behind that of other surgical subspecialties, which may create challenges in addressing the rising burden of musculoskeletal disease in the U.S. These findings highlight the importance of efforts to identify barriers to grant procurement in orthopaedic surgery.

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

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.

Publication rates of abstracts presented across 6 major spine specialty conferences

Background

Although scientific researchers aim to present their projects at academic conferences as a step toward publication, not all projects mature to become a peer-reviewed manuscript. The publication rate of meetings can be utilized to assess the quality of presented research. Our objective was to evaluate the contemporary publication rate of abstracts presented at spine conferences.

Methods

We reviewed annual meeting programs of North American Spine Society (NASS), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS), International Meeting on Advanced Spine Techniques (IMAST), Spine Global Spine Congress (GSC), Lumbar Spine Research Society (LSRS), and Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) from 2017 to 2019. Abstracts were identified as published from PubMed and Google search. From published manuscripts, journal name and open access status was collected. Journal impact factors were collected from the 2021 Journal Citation Reports.

Results

A total of 3,091/5,722 (54%) abstracts were published, ranging from 44.5% to 66.3%. Publication rate of posters and podiums ranged from 39.8% to 64.8% and 51.6% to 67.2%, respectively. Podium presentations were more likely to be published than posters (59.6% vs. 47.2%, p<.001). Only NASS (61.4% vs. 61.8%) and LSRS (64.6% vs. 67.2%) demonstrated similar publication rates for posters and podiums. Award nominated abstracts had a significantly higher publication rate (68.0% vs. 53.4%, p<.001). Among journals with an impact factor, the median overall impact factor was 3.27 and was similar between all conferences except GSC, which was slightly lower (2.72 vs. 3.27, p<.001).

Conclusions

Fifty-four percent of abstracts were published with 3 societies (NASS, LSRS, and SRS) having rates of over 60%. Moreover, NASS and LSRS demonstrated high publication rates regardless of presentation type. These numbers are significantly higher than previous reports suggesting that these conferences allow attendees to review high quality evidence that is likely to achieve peer-reviewed publication while obtaining an early look at original research.

A Call to Action for Musculoskeletal Research Funding: The Growing Economic and Disease Burden of Musculoskeletal Conditions in the United States Is Not Reflected in Musculoskeletal Research Funding

ABSTRACT

As a result of an aging population, musculoskeletal disease is a growing source of health and economic burden in the United States. In 2019, musculoskeletal conditions affected approximately 127.4 million people (more than a third of the U.S. population); they were the top driver of health-care spending in 2016, with an estimated direct annual cost of $380.9 billion. While musculoskeletal conditions represent a substantial and growing burden in terms of prevalence, disability, and health-care costs, National Institutes of Health (NIH) research funding has remained disproportionately allocated to other disease conditions. Therefore, our purpose was to provide an assessment of the current burden of musculoskeletal disease in terms of prevalence, disability, and health-care costs, and compare the changing burden of disease to trends in NIH funding.

Diversity in Leadership at Musculoskeletal Oncology Fellowships in the United States

Musculoskeletal oncology fellowship directors (MOFDs) possess the unique ability to influence treatment paradigms in musculoskeletal oncology through teaching and research. Currently, the characteristics that define this important role including demographics, training characteristics, research activity, and grant funding are poorly defined. A list of musculoskeletal oncology fellowship programs was obtained from the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons and Musculoskeletal Oncology Fellowship Match. Bibliometric data including the h-index were abstracted from Scopus. Demographics, training, and federal grant characteristics were collected from academic websites. Comparisons were made using t-tests and data were presented as means ± SD. The average age at the appointment was 41±9 years and most were male (80%) and Caucasian (85%). Few had an additional graduate degree (10% MS, 5% PhD). The mean h-index was 23±15 resulting from 91±56 publications. There was a positive correlation between age and h-index (r=0.398, p=0.082). Four MOFDs (20%) had at least one National Institutes of Health research grant. Sex, race, additional graduate degree, and procurement of NIH funding were not associated with higher h-index values. Full professors had higher h-index values than assistant/associate professors (p=0.014). Women and racial minorities are underrepresented among leadership positions in musculoskeletal oncology fellowship programs. This study can help provide a benchmark for departments in orthopedic surgery and aspiring orthopedic surgeons for MOFD positions.

Academic career outcomes of Orthopedic Research and Education Foundation resident grant recipients

The Orthopedic Research and Education Foundation (OREF) awards resident research grants to orthopedic surgery residents. Outcomes are lacking for OREF resident grant recipients including academic career choice and scholarly productivity. This was a retrospective cohort study of OREF resident grant recipients (2012-2020). The percentage of OREF resident grant recipients selecting an academic career was compared with the percentage of academic orthopedic surgeons in the United States via a χ² test. Two hundred and seventy-six OREF resident grants were issued to 272 orthopedic surgery residents at 73 programs. OREF resident grant recipients were predominantly male (79.0%) and Caucasian (70.2%). OREF resident grant recipients had greater women representation than the national cohort of orthopedic surgery residents (21.0% vs. 16.0%, p = 0.030) with similar proportions of underrepresented racial minorities (29.8% vs. 27.2%, p = 0.351). OREF resident grants consisted of clinical (69.6%) and basic/translational science (30.4%) research and were awarded mostly for sports medicine (25.4%), trauma (18.8%), and adult reconstruction (15.9%) topics. The average h-index was 8.5 ± 9.2 resulting from 29.5 ± 51.2 manuscripts. The majority of OREF resident grant recipients selected an academic career, which was higher than the national benchmark of academic orthopedic surgeons (63.8% vs. 24.4%, p < 0.001). Two OREF resident grant recipients transitioned to National Institutes of Health research funding (0.7%). Multivariable logistical regression demonstrated two independent characteristics associated with pursuit of a future academic career: female sex (p = 0.042) and higher h-index values (p = 0.002). Procurement of OREF resident grants is associated with pursuit of an academic career. Clinical significance: There is great interest in fostering the next generation of orthopedic surgeon scientists. Results from this study demonstrate the association between receipt of an OREF resident research grant and pursuit of a future career in academic orthopedic surgery.

Impact of Orthopaedic Surgeons on National Institutes of Health Funding for Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Research

BACKGROUND

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) remains one of the predominant sources of biomedical research funding in the United States, yet its impact on total hip and knee arthroplasty research is poorly understood. This study defines the portfolio of NIH funding for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and the impact of orthopaedic surgeons on this portfolio.

METHODS

The Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database was queried for NIH grants that had been awarded for total hip and knee arthroplasty and total NIH funding from 2010 to 2020. Compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) were calculated. Funding totals were compared with those from 20 other clinical areas. The principal investigators (PIs) and grants were characterized, and comparisons were made with use of the Student t test.

RESULTS

A total of 489 grants were awarded, totaling $181 million (CAGR of 10.3%). This was >3 times the growth rate for the total NIH budget (CAGR of 2.9%), which increased from $31.2 to $41.7 billion over the 11-year period. When compared with 20 other clinical areas, TJA received the least amount of NIH funding over that period. Alzheimer disease received the most funding ($12.1 billion, CAGR of 19.5%), and cerebral palsy received the penultimate amount of funding ($284 million, CAGR of 6.3%). The R01 grant mechanism was the predominant source (63.1%), and the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) received the most funding (9.7%). Departments of orthopaedic surgery were awarded the most funding (23.5%), yet only 20 orthopaedic surgeons were identified as PIs (16.0%). There were no significant differences in NIH funding totals by PI demographic and academic characteristics (p > 0.05), yet orthopaedic surgeons had among the highest Hirsch indices (h-indices) (p < 0.001). Funding supported clinical (63.5%), translational (19.3%), basic science (7.1%), and other types (10.1%) of research. The top areas with funding were postoperative complications (44.4%), postoperative pain management (17.6%), rehabilitation (15.1%), and implant design (12.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a paucity of orthopaedic surgeon representation among NIH grants awarded for TJA. Opportunities may exist for orthopaedic surgeons to collaborate in identified areas of clinical interest. Additional research is needed to understand the obstacles to obtaining NIH grant funding for orthopaedic surgeon PIs.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Increasing the levels of funding from the NIH is a strategic priority for departments of orthopaedic surgery. Understanding levels of funding for clinical areas in total joint arthroplasty is critical to foster research and discovery support from the NIH.

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

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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).

RESULTS

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.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

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.

NIH Funding Across Surgical Specialties; How Do Women Fare?

BACKGROUND

Much has been written about the under-representation of women in academic medicine. However, no study has comprehensively described the gender-based trends of National Institutes of Health funding across surgical specialties; this study provides such an overview.

METHODS

We queried a previously created database to identify both male and female National Institutes of Health-funded surgeons. Surgical specialties and subspecialties were determined based upon formal training. Total grant costs and average costs per R01 and K grant were calculated and compared. Bivariate χ2 analyses were performed using population totals.

RESULTS

In 2020, the specialties with the highest proportion of National Institutes of Health-funded female surgeon-scientists were obstetrics and gynecology (57%) and vascular surgery (40%). The general surgery subspecialties with the highest proportion of women were breast (85%), endocrine (58%), and colorectal surgery (40%). An analysis of total grant costs in 2020 revealed that in most specialties, the proportion of funding held by women was substantially less than the proportion of women investigators. In obstetrics and gynecology, women comprised 57% of surgeons, but held only 46% of the funding. Similarly, in breast surgery, women comprised 85% of surgeons, but held only 45% of the funding. Women and men had similar changes in the average total cost per R01 and K grant awarded from 2010 to 2020. In 2020, women were awarded less than men per R01 grant in general, otolaryngology, plastic and reconstructive, urology, and vascular surgery.

CONCLUSION

Although female surgeon-scientists have made significant advances in some surgical specialties, they continue to lag in others. An in-depth analysis of the factors contributing to these trends is necessary to achieve gender parity across all academic surgical specialties.

Academic Influence as Reflected by h Index Is Not Associated With Total Industry Payments but Rather With National Institutes of Health Funding Among Academic Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Surgeons

PURPOSE

(1) To compare the total number and dollar amount of industry funding and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding to academic orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons and (2) to examine the impact of academic influence on industry funding and NIH funding to academic orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons.

METHODS

Academic orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons were identified using faculty web pages. Academic influence was approximated by a physician's Hirsch index (h index) and number of publications and obtained from the Scopus database. Total industry payments were acquired through the Open Payments Database, and NIH funding was determined from the NIH website. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman correlations with significance set at P < .05.

RESULTS

Physicians who received industry research payments and NIH funding had a significantly higher mean h index and more mean total publications than physicians who did not receive industry research payments and NIH funding. There were no significant differences in h index (P = .374) or number of publications (P = .126) between surgeons receiving industry nonresearch funding and those who did not. h Index and number of publications were both weakly correlated with the amount of industry research and nonresearch funding.

CONCLUSION

Although academic influence is associated with industry research funding and NIH funding, there is no association between measures of academic influence and total industry and industry nonresearch payments. Combined with the weak associations between academic influence and the amount of industry payments, academic influence does not appear to be a major determinant of industry funding to academic orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Surgeons should be cognizant of potential conflicts with industry, but the relationship between academic sports medicine surgeons and industry may be less subject to bias than previously believed.

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.

Transition to Independent Research Funding Among National Institutes of Health K Grant Awardees at Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery

BACKGROUND

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports mentored research career development awards (K awards) to increase the pipeline of independently funded scientists. This study analyzed the portfolio of K grants that were awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments and characterized the factors that were associated with successful transition to independent NIH research funding, including R01 grants.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of K-award recipients in orthopaedic surgery departments in the United States from 1996 to 2018. A query was performed on the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) database for NIH grants that were awarded to departments of orthopaedic surgery, general surgery, otolaryngology, obstetrics and gynecology, ophthalmology, and urology. Rates of transition to independent research funding were compared by specialty for K grants that were awarded from 1996 to 2011. The percentage of faculty with mentored research career development awards and the return on investment (ROI) were calculated. An internet and Scopus (Elsevier) database search determined the investigator characteristics. The factors that were associated with successful transition to independent funding were determined via chi-square and unpaired t tests.

RESULTS

Sixty K-award recipients were identified in orthopaedic surgery departments. Most were men (77%) and research scientists (53%). Fifty percent of the K-award recipients transitioned to independent research funding. Research scientists had the highest rate of transition to independent research funding (71%, p = 0.016) relative to clinicians (0%) and orthopaedic surgeons (40%). Higher levels of publication productivity were associated with successful transition to independent research funding. Similar rates of transition to independent research funding existed among surgical specialties (p = 0.107). Orthopaedic surgery had the lowest percentage of faculty with a K award (1.4%) but had the highest ROI (198%) of these awards.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthopaedic surgery had similar rates of transition to independent research funding when compared with other surgical specialties but had a lower prevalence of K awards among faculty. Orthopaedic surgeon-scientists have lower rates of transition to independent research funding when compared with their research-scientist colleagues. These findings highlight a need for greater support to foster the pipeline of future NIH-funded orthopaedic investigators.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As the largest support of biomedical research in the U.S., the NIH is an important stakeholder in orthopaedic innovations and discoveries. This study highlights barriers in the procurement of NIH funding across surgical specialties and affirms the need for greater resources toward supporting NIH funding in orthopaedic surgery.

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

BACKGROUND

The 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.

METHODS

Adult 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.

RESULTS

Surgeons 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.

CONCLUSION

h-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.

International trends in grant and fellowship funding awarded to women in neurosurgery

OBJECTIVE

Metric tracking of grant funding over time for academic neurosurgeons sorted by gender informs the current climate of career development internationally for women in neurosurgery.

METHODS

Multivariate linear trend analysis of grant funding awarded to neurosurgeons in the NIH and World Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) was performed. Traveling fellowships for international neurosurgery residents sponsored by the AANS and Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Within the US, funding awarded to female neurosurgeons has remained static from 2009 to 2019 after adjusting for inflation and overall trends in NIH funding (β = -$0.3 million per year, p = 0.16). Internationally, female neurosurgeons represented 21.7% (n = 5) of project leads for World RePORTER grants. Traveling fellowships are also an important building block for young international female neurosurgeons, of which 7.4% (n = 2) of AANS international traveling fellowships and 19.4% (n = 7) of AANS/CNS pediatrics international traveling fellowships are women.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past decade, funding has increased in neurosurgery without a concordant increase in funding awarded to women. Recognition of this trend is essential to focus efforts on research and career development opportunities for women in neurosurgery. Worldwide, female neurosurgeons head one-fifth of the funded project leads and constitute a minority of international traveling fellowships awarded by organized neurosurgery.

Relationship between Medical School Diversity and Participation in the US News and World Report Survey

INTRODUCTION

Reporting in USNWR rankings may reveal unintended, but important, sources of disparities with implications for medical school admissions and the future physician workforce.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To investigate relationships between allopathic medical school's student body diversity and participation in the US News and World Report Survey, we analyzed diversity statistics as listed in the Medical School Admissions Requirements (MSAR) database. These were compared to the institution's participation in the US News and World Report Survey for 152 US medical schools as either Primary Care or Research ranking.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

When considering USNWR rankings of research schools of medicine, those schools not participating in the survey had a 44.8% increase in UIM students. There was a statistical increase in the percentage of Latino/Hispanic students in schools that did not participate in the US News and World report survey as compared with those that did. Percentages of African American and Latino/Hispanic students were inversely correlated with US News and World Report research rankings. We suggest that participation in current publicly available allopathic medical school ranking platforms may have unintended and adverse consequences in maintaining a diverse medical school class and may impact longer-term goal of developing a diverse physician workforce that resembles the constituent population.

Analysis of National Institutes of Health Funding in Hand Surgery

Background: Federal research dollars help investigators develop biomedical therapies for human diseases. Currently, the state of funding in hand surgery is poorly understood. This study defines the portfolio of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants awarded in hand surgery. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of hand surgeons in the US. Faculty members of accredited hand surgery fellowships and/or members of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand were queried in the NIH RePORT database for awards obtained during 2005-2015. Results: Of 2317 hand surgeons queried, only 18 obtained an NIH grant (0.8%). Thirty-eight unique grants were identified totaling $42 197 375. R01 awards comprised the majority of funding (78.0%) while K08 awards accounted for 1.1%. The K-to-R transition rate was zero. The National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease supported the most funding (65.2%), followed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (30.8%). There was no statistically significant difference in NIH funding totals with hand surgeon characteristics. Funding supported translational (46.0%), basic science (29.6%), clinical (21.0%), and education-based (3.4%) research. Peripheral nerve (33.3%) and bone and joint disease (30.1%) received the most research funding. Conclusions: Less than 1% of hand surgeons obtain NIH research grants. Of the 2 identified K08 awards, none led to a subsequent R award. Future research should identify barriers to grant procurement to design effective policies to increase NIH funding in hand surgery.

The Academic Chair: Achieving Success in a Rapidly Evolving Health-Care Environment: AOA Critical Issues

There is a growing consensus that an accomplished curriculum vitae and prior achievement as an academician may not correlate with success as a chairperson of a contemporary academic orthopaedic department. As surgeons, formal professional education, research expertise, and clinical experience often are inadequate to foster the necessary skills and experience in executive leadership, change management, business administration, and strategy. The recruiting and hiring processes to fill academic leadership roles have been slow to adapt and recognize the skills that are necessary to be a successful chairperson. Recent research has identified emotional competency, resiliency, leadership, communication, results orientation, and personnel development as skills that correlate with success in academic leadership. Formal courses and training in executive leadership and business management may be helpful in enhancing knowledge and skills in these disciplines.

Scholarly Success of Orthopaedic Surgeons Participating in the Clinician Scholar Career Development Program

BACKGROUND

A concern exists about the decline in young orthopaedic surgeons pursuing careers as clinician-researchers. One program designed to address this concern is the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons/Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation/Orthopaedic Research Society (AAOS/OREF/ORS) Clinician Scholar Career Development Program (CSCDP). The aims of this study were to better understand the characteristics of CSCDP participants and how the experience effects involvement in career-impacting opportunities and scholarly activity.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis. CSCDP participants from 2003 to 2014 were recorded, and demographic information was collected. An Internet search was utilized to determine each surgeon's current practice environment. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database was used to track NIH funding. The OREF and its web site were used to query OREF grant funding. American Orthopaedic Association (AOA) Traveling Fellowship awardees were recorded from the AOA web site. Specialty-specific traveling fellowship awardee information was collected via organization web sites, and direct-contact, scholarly activity, and impact were determined using the Scopus database Hirsch index (h-index).

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-two individuals (229 confirmed current orthopaedic surgeons) participated in the CSCDP. Fifteen (6.6%), 41 (17.9%), 20 (8.7%), and 17 (7.4%) former CSCDP participants have been awarded NIH funding, OREF grant support, AOA Traveling Fellowships, and/or specialty-specific traveling fellowships, respectively. Those involved in any of the career-impactful opportunities post-CSCDP have had higher scholarly activity and impact compared with those who were not involved in the career-impactful opportunities (h-index: 15.9 [standard deviation (SD), 8.1] versus 10.0 [SD, 5.7], p < 0.0001). No scholarly activity and impact differences existed between orthopaedic subspecialties (p = 0.077).

CONCLUSIONS

The CSCDP appears to play an important role in promoting clinician-researcher careers in orthopaedic surgery.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The CSCDP must continue to adapt to the surrounding health-care landscape to achieve an even better success rate in creating clinician-researchers who will further advance musculoskeletal health and discovery for the betterment of the patients and the profession.

Gender differences in career development awards in United States' anesthesiology and surgery departments, 2006-2016

Background

Although the status of women in anesthesiology has advanced by many measures, obtaining career development funding remains challenging. Here, we sought to compare the characteristics of funded career development awards from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) between the specialties of anesthesiology and surgery. We hypothesized that the two groups differ in percentage of faculty with awards, gender distribution among principal investigators, as well as the number of awards promoting diversity.

Methods

The NIH grant-funding database RePORT was queried for career development awards for the years 2006–2016 using the filters “Anesthesiology” and “Surgery.” Grants were characterized based on the gender of the principal investigator and whether the funding opportunity announcement indicated promotion of underrepresented minorities (URM). The 2016 Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) report on “Distribution of U.S. Medical School Faculty by Sex and Rank” was used to adjust comparisons according to baseline gender distributions in anesthesiology and surgery departments. Cohorts were characterized using descriptive methods and compared using Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test.

Results

Based on our AAMC data query, in 2016, the number of women faculty members at the instructor or assistant professor level in U.S. medical schools was 2314 (41%) for anesthesiology and 2281 (30%) for surgery. Between 2006 and 2016, there were 88 career development grants awarded to investigators in anesthesiology departments compared to 261 in surgery departments. Of the grantees in each specialty, 29 (33%) were women in anesthesiology and 72 (28%) in surgery (P = 0.344). Awards to promote URM were identified for two grants (2%) in anesthesiology and nine grants (3%) in surgery (P = 0.737). Faculty members in surgery were more likely to receive an award than in anesthesiology (P < 0.0001), and women were less likely to receive an award than men (P = 0.026).

Conclusions

The major difference between US anesthesiology and surgery departments is that the number of faculty career development awards is significantly higher in surgery departments. Future efforts should aim to identify the reasons for such differences in order to inform strategies that can improve the likelihood for junior faculty members to receive career development funding.

Increasing Industry Support Is Associated with Higher Research Productivity in Orthopaedic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Orthopaedic surgeons receive a disproportionately small share of funding from the National Institutes of Health, but they receive the largest amount of funding from industry sources. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between payments from industry partners and research productivity among orthopaedic research authors, as well as to identify predictors of high research productivity.

METHODS

United States-based physicians who published an article in 2016 in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery or The American Journal of Sports Medicine were included in this study. These authors were queried in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database (OPD) to determine the amount of industry payments received, and on Scopus, a bibliometric web site, to assess the quantity (total publication count) and quality (Hirsch index [h-index]) of each author's research. Nonparametric testing was used to compare the h-index and the total publication count of authors by payments received and academic position. Multivariate regression was used to identify independent predictors of high research productivity.

RESULTS

Of the 766 included authors, 494 (64.5%) received <$10,000 per year, 162 (21.1%) received between $10,000 and $100,000, and 110 (14.4%) received >$100,000 in total payments. The h-index increased significantly from a mean (and standard deviation) of 13.1 ± 12.9 to 20.9 ± 14.4, and to 32.3 ± 16.7, from the lowest to highest payment cohorts, as did total publication count. When authors were stratified by academic position (assistant professor, associate professor, full professor, and nonacademic), those who received more industry payments (>$100,000) had a higher h-index and total publication count at all academic levels relative to lower-earning (<$10,000) authors. Independent predictors of a high h-index included industry payments of between $10,000 and $100,000 (odds ratio [OR], 1.63; p = 0.048), payments of >$100,000 (OR, 5.87), associate professorship (OR, 6.53), full professorship (OR, 33.38), and last authorship (OR, 2.22) (p < 0.001 for all comparisons unless otherwise noted).

CONCLUSIONS

Although this study does not establish a causal relationship, we identified increasing industry payments as an independent predictor of research productivity among authors at all academic levels who had published peer-reviewed orthopaedic research.