Research-Track Residency Programs in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Survey of Program Directors and Recent Graduates

How Research Improves Clinical Care: The Case for Orthopaedic Surgeon Research Leadership and Collaboration: AOA Critical Issues Symposium

ABSTRACT

Improving the performance and impact of orthopaedic research is a critical leadership challenge. Musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions are a leading cause of disability worldwide, for which research investment and performance lags far behind the burden of disease. In the United States, MSK disorders account for the highest health care costs, have increased in incidence at the fastest rate, and exceed the combined costs of cardiovascular diseases and neoplasms. Despite the cost to society, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), with primary responsibility for MSK research, receives <1.4% of the funds allocated to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Although orthopaedic surgeons are leading providers of MSK clinical care, the dearth of orthopaedic clinician-scientists also greatly reduces representation of MSK scientific and clinical expertise among academic and scientific leaders. The goals of this symposium were to highlight the critical need for greater prioritization and investment in orthopaedic research and to engage orthopaedic leaders in addressing these needs. Compelling stories of research success from 3 orthopaedic chairs were featured to highlight how orthopaedic surgeon leadership in bench-to-bedside research substantially advances MSK clinical care. Seminar participants also emphasized the need to improve evidence-based clinical practice for which multicenter prospective cohort and registry studies represent opportunities for broader involvement. Prioritization of orthopaedic clinician-scientist development and formation of multidisciplinary partnerships with basic and translational scientists were emphasized as critical needs to advance MSK health. It is critical for orthopaedic chairs to "be invested in" and to "invest in" the success of orthopaedic research. This investment includes developing a professional climate that values research achievement and collaboration as well as implementing strategies to support and sustain research success. Finally, orthopaedic leaders need to advocate for federal research funding to be proportional to the economic burden of disease for which MSK conditions carry the highest current and projected costs. With health-care costs accounting for nearly one-fifth of the U.S. economy, increasing the investment in orthopaedic research to reduce the prevalence, disability, and morbidity from MSK disease needs to be a top orthopaedic and national leadership priority.

Academic Degree Bias Among Speaking and Leadership Roles at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Annual Meetings, 2016-2021

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the proportion of Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (DOs) across various speaking and leadership roles at recent American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) annual meetings.  Design: Meeting programs from the AAOS were publicly accessed and compiled between 2016 and 2021. Two categories of AAOS meeting participants were created. Invited speaker and faculty roles included moderators of symposia and program committee members while authors of presented papers were classified into academic roles. The proportion of DOs in each role type (invited speaker, academic) was recorded for each meeting program. The representation of DOs in these roles was then examined longitudinally across our analysis period using Pearson's Correlation.  Results: Overall, 1.1% (119/10,636) of all roles were held by DOs. Across our analysis period, DOs were disproportionately underrepresented as invited faculty or speakers (0.1%, 4/2791) compared with academic roles (0.1% vs 1.5%, p<0.001). Specifically, DOs were underrepresented as program committee members (0.08% vs 1.5%, p<0.001), symposia lecturers (0.1% vs 1.5%, p=0.004), and moderators of paper presentations (0.3% vs 1.5%, p=0.01).  Conclusion: Between 2016-2021, DOs were disproportionately represented as invited speakers or faculty at AAOS annual meetings. Our definition of diverse perspectives may need to expand to include osteopathic physicians.

A Near-Miss in Clinical Outcomes Research Data Collection

ABSTRACT

We present the case of a near-miss in clinical research to illustrate a situation in which errors in data collection would have led to different results in the data analysis, with the potential for drawing incorrect conclusions. Conclusions based on data errors may adversely influence future medical decision-making in patient care. In the interest of presenting this as an educational, nonpunitive, quality-improvement report, the study and the involved researchers remain anonymous, and the specific details and exact number of patients are not reported.

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.

What Are the Trends in Research Publication Misrepresentation Among Orthopaedic Residency and Fellowship Applicants From 1996 to 2019? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Because research experience is increasingly important in ranking orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants, determining the accuracy of candidates reporting their scholarly activity is essential. However, disparate and inconsistent findings have made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from individual studies.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this systematic review, we asked: (1) What percentage of research publications are misrepresented among orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants? (2) What percentage of applications contain one or more example of academic misrepresentation? (3) Is research misrepresentation associated with any individual applicant characteristics? (4) What is the publication status of articles listed by applicants as having been submitted to journals?

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. PubMed, EBSCOhost, Medline, and Google Scholar electronic databases were searched on March 10, 2022, to identify all studies that evaluated research misrepresentation in orthopaedic residency and fellowship applications between January 1, 1995, and March 1, 2022. Articles were included if full-text articles in English were available and the study reported on research misrepresentation among orthopaedic residency or fellowship applicants. Studies investigating nonorthopaedic publications, systematic reviews, case studies, duplicate studies among databases, and gray literature were excluded. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of included studies using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) tool. This is a validated assessment tool that grades noncomparative studies from 0 to 16 and studies with control groups from 0 to 24, based on eight criteria related to study design, outcomes assessed, and follow-up. All included articles were noncomparative studies, so the maximum score here was 16, with higher scores indicating better study quality. The mean MINORS score was 13 ± 1 in the studies we included. The final analysis included 10 studies with 5119 applicants. Eight studies evaluated orthopaedic residency applicants and two evaluated fellowship applicants. The applicant classes ranged from 1996 to 2019. Research misrepresentation was defined among studies as nonauthorship of an existing article, claimed authorship of a nonexistent article, or incorrect listing of authorship order for an existing article. Each study's findings and definition of research misrepresentation were considered to allow for a discussion of overall trends. The percentage of misrepresentation was further broken down by the misrepresentation type. Applicant characteristics and destination of submitted articles were also evaluated. Given the potential overlap between applicants among the studies, no pooled analysis was conducted, and results are presented as a narrative summary.

RESULTS

The percentage of overall publication misrepresentation was estimated to range between 1% (13 of 1100) and 21% (27 of 131), with more-recent studies reporting a lower proportion of overall articles misrepresented. Most studies we found claimed that authorship of a nonexistent article was the most common type of misrepresentation. Nonauthorship of an existing article and incorrect authorship order were less common. The percentage of applications with at least one misrepresentation was approximately 20% between 1998 and 2017. Most studies found no applicant characteristics, such as match outcomes, demographic markers, or academic records, that were consistently associated with a higher odds of the candidate misrepresenting his or her research credentials. Finally, approximately half of the articles listed as submitted to journals went on to publication, with one-third going to a different journal with a lower Impact Factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review found that the percentage of overall publication misrepresentations among orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants has generally been low over the past 20 years. However, approximately one-fifth of applications had at least one research misrepresentation, with 2% having multiple misrepresentations on reported publications. There were no consistent applicant characteristics associated with higher odds of research misrepresentation. Additionally, most of the articles listed as submitted to journals for publication were ultimately published.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Although the decrease in overall publication misrepresentation is encouraging, our finding that one-fifth of applicants have research misrepresentation is a cause for concern. In light of a continually evolving application process, orthopaedic residency and fellowship programs must ensure there is integrity related to information that is self-reported by applicants. These findings also serve to encourage faculty members involved in the application screening and decision process to limit biases related to applicant demographics perceived to be associated with a high odds of misrepresentation. Furthermore, governing agencies and program leadership should evaluate methods of verifying unpublished work and provide opportunities for applicants to give publication updates throughout the application cycle.

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.

Creating a Resident Research Track in Synergy With the Rehabilitation Medicine Scientist Training Program

ABSTRACT

Physician scientists play an important role in the translation of research findings to patient care; however, their training faces numerous challenges. Residency research track programs represent an opportunity to facilitate the training of future physician scientists in physical medicine and rehabilitation, although optimal program organization and long-term outcomes remain unknown. The Rehabilitation Medicine Scientist Training Program is a National Institutes of Health-funded program aimed at addressing the shortage of physician researchers in the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation by providing instruction, mentorship, and networking opportunities for a successful research career. While the opportunities provided through the Rehabilitation Medicine Scientist Training Program provide critical education and guidance at a national level, trainees are most successful with availability of strong local support and mentorship. The purpose of this article was to present a realistic and easily applicable structure for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency research track that can be used in concert with the Rehabilitation Medicine Scientist Training Program.

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.

Developing a Research Career

Research is crucial to train the next generation of academic surgeons. Formal training builds research skills, starting with the ability to generate hypotheses, formulate questions, and address gaps in knowledge. Essential factors that are important to a research pathway include a supportive environment, experienced mentorship team, work-life balance, and a source of funding. Oral and maxillofacial surgery must make diversity a top priority, and protocols must be implemented to retain members of underrepresented groups throughout their careers.

Research activities and critical appraisal skills among Saudi orthopedic residents

BACKGROUND

Medical research is a central part of any residency training. In view of the new Saudi orthopedic committee promotion regulation that mandates each resident to participate in a research project, the challenges that stand in the way of completion of substantial research within surgical residency must be investigated. The aim of this study was to assess the practice, attitudes, perception, and limitations associated with research among residents in the Saudi orthopedic program in the central region.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted between June and July 2020 using an online-based survey. The total number of study participants was 128 orthopedic residents out of the 191 residents enrolled in the central region program. Data were analyzed, and descriptive statistics in the form of frequency and percentage were determined, analytical tests were performed with P < 0.05 being statistically significant.

RESULTS

Most residents (95 %) participated in a research project during residency. Most projects (53.10 %) were case reports followed by retrospective studies (48.40 %). The majority (79.70 %) did not attend a research methods course during residency. Experience in research differed significantly (P < 0.05) by age, residency year, and center. The mean involvement score was significantly higher among males at 3 (± 1) than among females at 2 (± 0) (P < 0.001). Only 40.60 % have access to orthopedic journals, and the same percentage (40.60 %) knew how to Critique original articles. There was a statistically significant difference in the accessibility score according to the training center. Lack of faculty support and mentorship were the main barriers to medical research at 62.50 and 39.10 %, respectively. A total of 68.80 % reported that funding was not available through their institutes.

CONCLUSIONS

In Saudi Arabia, the level of meaningful clinical research and publications by orthopedic residents is still low. The results of this study should be taken into consideration before the implementation of the new promotion criteria in the centers under the umbrella of Saudi orthopedic committee.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Applicants During the 2021 Residency Match Cycle in the United States

Introduction:

The purpose of this study was to quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rising fourth-year medical students' plans to apply to residency in orthopaedic surgery.

Methods:

We conducted a survey of rising fourth-year medical students. Primary outcome was the change in students' plans to apply to residency in orthopaedic surgery as measured by Likert scale response. Secondary outcomes were students' concerns about applying to residency during the pandemic.

Results:

A total of 462 students were planning to apply to residency in orthopaedic surgery. Women said that they were “less likely” to apply to orthopaedic surgery because of the pandemic (14.9% versus 5.5% of men, P < 0.001). Students identifying as Black/African American said that they were “less likely” to apply (16.9% compared with 8.8 of non-Hispanic White, P < 0.001). Students said that they had “somewhat fewer” or “many fewer” opportunities to get adequate exposure to orthopaedic surgery to make a specialty choice (88.9% of students).

Discussion:

We support the development of robust student advising and mentorship networks to address the uncertainty inherent in applying to residency during a global pandemic and curtail the racial and sex disparities discovered in this survey.

An Institutional Academic and Research Track Curriculum for Radiology Residents: Development, Implementation, and Outcomes Assessment at 6 Years

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

We report the creation of a voluntary research development curriculum for radiology residents at our institution, detailing outcomes after 6 years of existence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a comprehensive Academic and Research Track (ART) curriculum for radiology residents in our department, including mentorship, monthly meetings, didactic curriculum, ongoing evaluation/feedback, protected academic time, and financial support. A literature review identified all indexed publications for our residency graduates from 6 years pre- (2007-2012) to 6 years post-ART (2013-2018) intervention. We also documented career outcomes (academic versus private practice). Summary statistics, Chi-square, and Poisson regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

ART group demonstrated significantly greater publication likelihood versus pre-ART predecessors (odds ratio [OR]: 3.59, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.40-9.19; risk ratios [RR]: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.19-2.11; p= 0.01), contemporaneous non-ART cohort (OR: 3.03, 95% CI: 1.12-8.33; RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.08-1.96; p = 0.04), and combined pre-ART plus non-ART group (OR: 3.34, 95% CI: 1.35-8.22; RR: 1.41, 95% CI: 0.87-2.29; p = 0.012). In Poisson regression, ART was a significant factor for total, first author, and senior author publications among all graduates and among the subset which remained in academics (all p-values < 0.05). Estimators were positive in all regressions, indicating a positive effect of ART for increasing numbers of publications.

CONCLUSION

ART membership was associated with significantly increased indexed publications. A greater proportion of ART members remained in academics compared to non-ART members, but did not reach statistical significance. We detail our ART structure and curriculum, which may be used as a malleable template for other radiology departments.