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

MedStar author(s):
Citation: Journal of Shoulder & Elbow Surgery. 2022 Aug 03PMID: 35932996Institution: MedStar Union Memorial HospitalDepartment: Orthopaedic Surgery Residency | Orthopaedic Surgery ResidencyForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: IN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXEDYear: 2022Local holdings: Available online from MWHC library: 1995 - present, Available in print through MWHC library:2004 - 2007ISSN:
  • 1058-2746
Name of journal: Journal of shoulder and elbow surgeryAbstract: 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 (ASES) accredited shoulder and elbow fellowship faculty.DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that academic influence among academic shoulder and elbow surgeons is not greater in those who receive non-research industry funding. However, surgeons with industry research funding did produce more publications, while NIH funding is associated with greater academic influence. Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.METHODS: Shoulder and elbow fellowships and affiliated faculty members were identified from the ASES website. Academic influence, measured by Hirsch (h)-index, and number of articles published were determined for faculty members using the Scopus Database Author Identifier tool. Industry payments were derived from the CMS Open Payments Database. NIH funding was determined using The National Institutes of Health's Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool (RePORT). Statistical analysis used Spearman correlations and the Mann-Whitney U test with an alpha value of 0.05 (p < 0.05).RESULTS: 146 faculty members were included. Twenty two percent (42/146) received non-research payments, while 78% (114/146) received industry research funding averaging All authors: Haislup BD, Murthi AM, Sequeira S, Trent S, Wright MAFiscal year: FY2023Digital Object Identifier: Date added to catalog: 2022-09-26
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article 35932996 Available 35932996

Available online from MWHC library: 1995 - present, Available in print through MWHC library:2004 - 2007

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 (ASES) accredited shoulder and elbow fellowship faculty.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that academic influence among academic shoulder and elbow surgeons is not greater in those who receive non-research industry funding. However, surgeons with industry research funding did produce more publications, while NIH funding is associated with greater academic influence. Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.

METHODS: Shoulder and elbow fellowships and affiliated faculty members were identified from the ASES website. Academic influence, measured by Hirsch (h)-index, and number of articles published were determined for faculty members using the Scopus Database Author Identifier tool. Industry payments were derived from the CMS Open Payments Database. NIH funding was determined using The National Institutes of Health's Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool (RePORT). Statistical analysis used Spearman correlations and the Mann-Whitney U test with an alpha value of 0.05 (p < 0.05).

RESULTS: 146 faculty members were included. Twenty two percent (42/146) received non-research payments, while 78% (114/146) received industry research funding averaging ,364 (SD= 1,213). NIH funding averaged 72,589 (SD= 24,635) and 5% received NIH funding (7/146). 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=0.02), while 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 non-research payments did not impact number of publications or h-index.

English

Powered by Koha