Ranking United States University-Based General Surgery Programs on the Academic Achievement of Surgery Department Faculty

Keane, Charles A.; Lossia, Olivia V.; Olson, Samuel R.; Akhter, Maheen F.; Davis, Ryan T; Jarbo, Dillon A.; Hudson, Michael L.; Boyd, Carter J.

doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.10.015

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Students who attend medical schools with smaller plastic surgery divisions with less or even no NIH funding have fewer research mentors and less financial support, making research opportunities less accessible. In fact, ranking surgical residency programs by NIH funding as a proxy for research activity has been suggested in the literature 14,17 . Supporting this hypothesis, Roy et al 6 found a positive correlation between publication numbers and institution NIH funding, and our study demonstrates that having greater plastic surgery NIH funding independently increases one's odds of presenting at least 3 times by more than 3-fold.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…In fact, ranking surgical residency programs by NIH funding as a proxy for research activity has been suggested in the literature. 14,17 Supporting this hypothesis, Roy et al 6 found a positive correlation between publication numbers and institution NIH funding, and our study demonstrates that having greater plastic surgery NIH funding independently increases one's odds of presenting at least 3 times by more than 3-fold. This disadvantage is further heightened for students without plastic surgery residency programs at their institutions.…”

Section: |supporting

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Medical Student Race to Research

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Abstract presentations increase research output and facilitate networking for medical students applying to plastic surgery. We aim to determine predictors of increased medical student presentation at national plastic surgery conferences, identifying disparities in access to research opportunities. Methods Abstracts presented at the 2 most recent meetings of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Association of Plastic Surgeons, and Plastic Surgery Research Council were extracted from online archives. Presenters without MDs or other professional credentials were classified as medical students. Presenter gender, medical school ranking, plastic surgery division/department, National Institutes of Health funding, number of total and first-author publications, H-index, and research fellowship completion status were recorded. Students with 3 or more (>75th percentile) presentations were compared with those with less by χ 2 tests. Univariate and multivariable regressions identified factors associated with 3 or more presentations. Results Of 1576 abstracts, 549 (34.8%) were presented by 314 students. The gender distribution was 46.5% male and 53.5% female. Most were from the Northeast (36.9%), 35% came from top 20 medical schools, and 85% attended schools with home plastic surgery programs. While 61.8% presented once, 14.6% presented 3 or more times. Those who previously presented, completed research fellowships or had more publications or higher H-indices were likely to present more (P ≤ 0.007). On multivariable-adjusted analysis, completing research fellowships (odds ratio [OR], 2.34–2.52; P = 0.028–0.045), affiliation with institutions having higher National Institutes of Health funding (OR, 3.47–3.73; P = 0.004–0.006), or having more total number of publications (OR, 3.81; P = 0.018) or first-author publications (OR, 3.84; P = 0.008) was associated with 3 or more presentations. Presenter gender, geographic region, medical school ranking, home program status, and H-indices were not significant predictors on multivariable analysis. Conclusions There are several potential inequities in access to research opportunities for medical students, disadvantaging those with less well-funded plastic surgery programs and existing research experience. Improving the equitability of these opportunities is crucial for limiting bias in trainee recruitment and diversifying representation in the field.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: |supporting

confidence: 81%

The Medical Student Race to Research

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All academic general surgery programs from a list compiled by Keane et al were selected for this study [ 7 ]. This 2021 list was compiled by ranking the academic productivity of 106 university-based general surgery departments based on faculty lifetime h-index, faculty five-year h-index, total funding from the National Institute of Health (NIH), total funding from the Veterans Association (VA), and faculty involvement in journal editorial positions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-Sectional Study of Osteopathic General Surgeons in University-Based General Surgery Departments

Khan¹,

Patnaik²,

Wheeler³

et al. 2022

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Discrepancy between osteopathic (DO) and allopathic (MD) graduates in general surgery spans across all levels of training. In this cross-sectional study, we characterized DO surgeons who serve as faculty at university-based general surgery departments. Methods: Overall, 106 university-based surgery departments were reviewed. DO and MD surgeons from the same institutions were identified, and demographic data were tabulated. MD surgeons were the control group. Univariate analysis and multivariate regression models were used to compare total publications, h-index, and citations. Results: A total of 70 DO surgeons from 34 institutions were identified: 53 assistant professors, 16 associate professors, and one full professor. Of the DO surgeons, 35.7% completed residency at a university-based program, and 92.9% completed a fellowship, with surgical critical care and trauma being the most common. They were compared to 1,307 MD surgeons from the same institutions. Univariate analysis showed that MD faculty graduated medical school earlier (mean years (standard deviation (SD)): 14.8 (6.0) versus 23.3 (10.6); p<0.0001), had more total publications (median (interquartile range (IQR)): 5 (2.0-18.3) versus 35 (15.0-79.0); p<0.0001), had higher number of citations (median (IQR): 61.0 (14.0-265.0) versus 655.0 (155.0-2267.0); p<0.001), and had a higher h-index (median (IQR): 3 (1.0-8.0) versus 12 (6.0-24.0); p<0.001). Negative binomial regression models accounting for years since graduation, gender, and degree were performed. At the assistant professor rank, MD surgeons had more total publications (exponential coefficient (CI): 2.24 (1.67-3.02); p<0.001), more citations (3.10 (2.20-4.11); p<0.001), and a higher h-index (1.93 (1.36-2.73); p<0.001). Similar trends were noted at the associate professor level with MD surgeons having more total publication (1.67 (1.00-2.79); p=0.049), more citations (3.63 (2.13-6.18); p<0.001), and higher h-index (1.93 (1.10-3.39); p=0.022). Conclusions: To address this discrepancy between DO and MD faculty surgeons, action must begin at the medical school and continue through residency. DO trainees need better access to mentorship and research support to foster an academic career.

show abstract