Subspecialty Selection Impacts Research Productivity and Faculty Rank of Academic Orthopaedic Surgeons

Diversity of Backgrounds and Academic Accomplishments for Presidents Elected to Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Societies in the United States

BACKGROUND

Academic accomplishments and demographics for presidents of hip and knee arthroplasty societies are poorly understood. This study compares the characteristics of presidents nominated to serve the Hip Society, Knee Society, and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of arthroplasty presidents in the United States (1990 to 2022). Curriculum vitae and academic websites were analyzed for demographic, training, bibliometric, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding data. Comparisons were made between organizations and time periods (1990 to 2005 versus 2006 to 2022).

RESULTS

There were 97 appointments of 78 unique arthroplasty presidents (80%). Most presidents were male (99%) and Caucasian (95%). There was 1 woman (1%) and 5 non-Caucasian presidents (2% Asian, 3% Hispanic). There were no differences in demographics between the 3 arthroplasty organizations and the 2 time periods (P > .05). Presidents were appointed at 55 ± 10 years old, which was on average 24 years after completion of residency training. Most presidents had arthroplasty fellowship training (68%), and the most common were the Hospital for Special Surgery (21%) and Massachusetts General Hospital (8%). The median h-index was 53 resulting from 191 peer-reviewed publications, which was similar between the 3 organizations (P > .05). There were 2 presidents who had NIH funding (2%), and there were no differences in NIH funding between the 3 organizations (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroplasty society presidents have diverse training pedigrees, high levels of scholarly output, and similar demographics. There may be future opportunities to promote diversity and inclusion among the highest levels of leadership in total joint arthroplasty.

Academic productivity correlates with industry earnings in foot and ankle fellowship programs in the United States: A retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

The study investigates the connection between academic productivity and industry earnings in foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships. Utilizing metrics like the H-index and Open Payments Database (OPD) data, it addresses a gap in understanding the relationship between scholarly achievements and financial outcomes, providing a basis for further exploration in this specialized medical field.

AIM

To elucidate the trends between academic productivity and industry earnings across foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowship programs in the United States.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of the relationship between academic productivity and industry earnings of foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships at an individual faculty and fellowship level. Academic productivity was defined via H-index and recorded from the Scopus website. Industry earnings were recorded from the OPD.

RESULTS

Forty-eight foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships (100% of fellowships) in the United States with a combined total of 165 physicians (95.9% of physicians) were included. Mean individual physician (n = 165) total life-time earnings reported on the OPD website was United States Dollar (USD) 451430.30 ± 1851084.89 (range: USD 25.16-21269249.85; median: USD 27839.80). Mean physician (n = 165) H-index as reported on Scopus is 14.24 ± 12.39 (range: 0-63; median: 11). There was a significant but weak correlation between individual physician H-index and individual physician total life-time earnings (P < 0.001; Spearman's rho = 0.334) and a significant and moderate positive correlation between combined fellowship H-index and total life-time earnings per fellowship (P = 0.004, Spearman's rho = 0.409).

CONCLUSION

There is a significant and positive correlation between academic productivity and industry earnings at foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships in the United States. This observation is true on an individual physician level as well as on a fellowship level.

Retainment of U.S. Orthopaedic Surgeons in Academia from 2016 to 2022

Background

Academic medical centers greatly benefit from retaining their physicians; that ensures continuity in patient care, enhances resident education, and maintains a pool of experienced clinicians and researchers. Despite its importance, little research has been published on the retainment of academic faculty in orthopaedics. To address this gap, this study investigates the demographic trends of academic orthopaedic surgeons from 2016 to 2022. By analyzing data pertaining to gender distribution, years of practice, research productivity, and institutional rankings, we aimed to gain insights into the factors influencing faculty retainment, institution changes, and new entrants into academic orthopaedics.

Methods

A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of U.S. academic orthopaedic surgeons affiliated with programs under the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) in 2016 and 2022 was performed. Faculty present in both the 2016 and the 2022 data were classified as being "retained" in academia; those present only in 2016, as having "left" academia; and those present only in 2022, as being "new" to academia. The retained group was then divided into movers (those who moved to other institutions) and non-movers.

Results

Retained orthopaedists had fewer years of practice, a higher h-index (Hirsch index), and more publications. Non-fellowship-trained orthopaedists had less retainment in academia, and orthopaedists with fellowships in oncology had more retainment in academia. Additionally, movers also had fewer years in practice but an equal level of scholarly productivity when compared with non-movers. Lastly, higher-ranked academic programs retained a greater proportion of orthopaedic surgeons.

Conclusions

Over the study period, a majority of orthopaedists (56.99%) chose to remain in academia. Those retained tended to be in the earlier stages of their careers, yet demonstrated higher research output. Notably, the representation of female orthopaedists in academic orthopaedics is on the rise. Conversely, lower-ranked programs faced higher turnover rates, highlighting the challenges that they encounter in retaining faculty members.

Clinical Relevance

Academic medical centers benefit from retaining orthopaedic surgeons by maintaining patient relationships, having consistency in resident education, and building on clinical and research expertise. Likewise, orthopaedists benefit from understanding the trends in current academic employment, in order to optimize career planning decisions.

Does Academic Productivity Correlate With Industry Payments in Hand Surgery Fellowship Programs in the United States?

BACKGROUND

Hand surgeons and the industry share a common goal to improve the care of patients. However, industry support remains controversial, and the current relationship with fellowship programs remains unclear. This study explores the relationship between industry support and research productivity among hand surgeons in the academic setting.

METHODS

The Open Payments database, created by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as a result of the Sunshine Act, was used to identify supplemental income paid to physicians of hand surgery fellowships in the United States. Both lifetime individual physician and aggregated fellowship Sunshine Act supplemental income (2015-2021) were collected for review. Supplemental income only reflects royalties, consulting fees, or food and does not include direct research funding. H-index was collected through the Scopus website as a proxy for academic productivity.

RESULTS

Six hundred and thirty-four faculty physicians (90.8%) from 94 hand surgery fellowships (100%) were included in the study. The mean individual physician lifetime supplemental income was $67,272 (median $341,861), whereas the mean individual physician H-index was 12.5 (median 9.0). There was a significant and weak positive correlation between individual physician H-index and lifetime income (p<0.001). Similarly, there was a significant and moderately positive correlation between the combined fellowship H-index and total lifetime income (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Research productivity of an orthopedic hand fellowship group and individual academic hand surgeon correlate with overall industry support from indirect research funding. Further work is required to better understand the advantages and disadvantages of industry support of academically productive hand surgeons at hand surgery fellowships.

Use of the Relative Citation Ratio in Conjunction With H-Index to Promote Equity in Academic Orthopaedics

INTRODUCTION

Quantification of a researcher's productivity relies on objective bibliometric measurements, such as the Hirsch index (h-index). However, h-index is not field and time-normalized and possesses bias against newer researchers. Our study is the first to compare the relative citation ratio (RCR), a new article-level metric developed by the National Institutes of Health, with h-index in academic orthopaedics.

METHODS

Academic orthopaedic programs in the United States were identified using the 2022 Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database. Available demographic and training data for surgeons were collected. RCR was calculated using the National Institutes of Health iCite tool, and h-index was calculated using Scopus.

RESULTS

Two thousand eight hundred twelve academic orthopaedic surgeons were identified from 131 residency programs. H-index, weighted RCR (w-RCR), and mean RCR (m-RCR) all significantly differed by faculty rank and career duration. However, while h-index and w-RCR varied between sexes (P < 0.001), m-RCR did not (P = 0.066), despite men having a longer career duration (P < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

We propose that m-RCR be used in conjunction with w-RCR or h-index to promote a fairer, comprehensive depiction of an orthopaedic surgeon's academic effect and productivity. Use of m-RCR may reduce the historic bias against women and younger surgeons in orthopaedics, which has implications in employment, promotion, and tenure.

Influential articles on shoulder arthroplasty: bibliometric analysis and visualized study

BACKGROUND

Shoulder arthroplasty has had increasing global demand, technical development, and research interest in the past few decades, with the publication of numerous articles. However, little is known about the characteristics and evaluation of these articles. Our objective was to study and analyze the top 100 cited articles in shoulder arthroplasty research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Publications on shoulder arthroplasty from inception to 2022 were retrieved from the Web of Science. The top 100 publications were defined by the number of citations, and their characteristics were recorded and analyzed. A visualized study of the articles was performed using VOSviewer software.

RESULTS

The top 100 cited articles were published between 1981 and 2018, with the 2000s the most productive decade. Citations per article ranged from 103 to 822. The countries with the most articles were the United States followed by France and Switzerland. Most of the articles were level III evidence. The keywords for the articles were primarily in 5 clusters: infection, fracture, osteoarthritis, perioperative complications, and prosthetic design.

CONCLUSIONS

The characteristics of influential articles on shoulder arthroplasty were thoroughly analyzed. Most studies focused on surgical techniques and perioperative complications with a relatively low level of evidence.

The Relative Citation Ratio: Evaluating a New Measure of Scientific Influence Among Academic Sports Medicine Surgeons

Background

Objective measures of research influence are being increasingly utilized to evaluate and compare academic faculty. However, traditional bibliometrics, such as the Hirsch index and article citation count, are biased by time-dependent factors and are limited by a lack of field normalization. The relative citation ratio (RCR) is a new field- and time-normalized article-level metric developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Purpose/Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the RCR among fellowship-trained academic sports medicine surgeons and to analyze physician factors associated with RCR values. We hypothesized that the mean RCR score for fellowship-trained academic sports medicine surgery faculty will fall above the NIH standard.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study.

Methods

A retrospective data analysis was performed using the iCite database for all fellowship-trained sports medicine surgery faculty associated with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited orthopaedic surgery residency programs in December 2021. In eligible faculty, the mean RCR, weighted RCR, and total publication count were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and presence of additional degrees. A mean RCR value of 1.0 is the NIH-funded field-normalized standard. The data herein are presented as the median and interquartile range, in addition to the mean and standard deviation, to account for outliers of the mean and weighted RCR scores.

Results

A total of 624 fellowship-trained sports medicine surgery faculty members from 160 orthopaedic surgery residency programs were included in the analysis. Overall, faculty produced impactful research, with a median RCR of 1.6 (interquartile range, 1.0-2.2) and a median weighted RCR of 19.3 (interquartile range, 5.1-69.3). Advanced academic rank and career longevity were associated with increased weighted RCR and total publication count. All subgroups analyzed had an RCR value >1.0.

Conclusion

Study findings indicate that fellowship-trained academic sports medicine surgery faculty are highly productive and produce impactful research, as evidenced by the high median RCR value relative to the benchmark NIH RCR value of 1.0.