Research productivity in neurosurgery: trends in globalization, scientific focus, and funding

Hauptman, Jason S.; Chow, Daniel; Martin, Neil A.; Itagaki, Michael W.

doi:10.3171/2011.8.jns11857

Cited by 56 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This methodology was described in part previously. [181222] More than 17.4 million articles from 5200 journals in 37 languages are indexed. [2526] As of August 19, 2009, MEDLINE was queried for all articles published between 1996 and 2008 that had stroke as a major topic of the paper.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in stroke research productivity: A global perspective

Chow¹,

Hauptman²,

Wong³

et al. 2012

Surg Neurol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:While stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide, little work has been done to quantify the growth and progress of stroke publications. The purpose of this study is to quantitatively analyze trends in the stroke literature over the past 12 years, specifically examining changes in worldwide productivity and study methodology.Methods:The study was a retrospective bibliometric analysis of all stroke articles published between 1996 and 2008 indexed in MEDLINE. Country of origin, MEDLINE-defined methodology, specialty of the first author, and funding sources (for US articles) were recorded. Growth was analyzed by using linear and nonlinear regression.Results:Total articles numbered 32,309 during the study period, with leading global contributors including the United States with 8795 (27.2%) articles, Japan with 2757 (8.5%) articles, and the United Kingdom with 2629 (8.1%) articles. Growth globally and in the United States followed a linear pattern at 209.9 and 56.2 articles per year, respectively (both P < 0.001). Review articles and clinical trials numbered 5932 (18.4%) and 2934 (9.1%), respectively. Clinical trials followed an exponential growth pattern of 7.7% per year (P < 0.001). Regarding specialty influence, pain management and rehabilitation had the largest proportional growth in clinical trials from 4 to 51 articles.Conclusions:Within the stroke literature, we observed continued growth worldwide, sustained growth in the United States, and a steady increase in the number of clinical trials, especially by pain management and rehabilitation.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in stroke research productivity: A global perspective

Chow¹,

Hauptman²,

Wong³

et al. 2012

Surg Neurol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, certain nonEnglish-language journals may not be included in the PubMed database. These are common limitations to publication studies, however [54][55][56][57].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Publication analysis on insomnia: how much has been done in the past two decades?

Dong²,

Mita

et al. 2015

Sleep Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…40 This is consistent with the reputation of the field as "research intensive," as the specialty has a higher degree of structured research opportunities built into residency training and beyond, relative to other surgical specialties. 5,16,20,21,40 Although that analysis along with another study specific to neurological surgeons found an increase in scholarly impact (as measured by the h index) with successive academic rank, 21 no analysis has looked at how strongly this measure of scholarly productivity is associated with NIH funding procurement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing National Institutes of Health funding and scholarly impact in neurological surgery

Svider

Husain

Folbe

et al. 2014

JNS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Object Research productivity is increasingly important in academic neurological surgery and can be measured through a variety of methods, such as publications, objective bibliometrics, and securing external grant support. The authors' objectives were to determine whether there is an association between scholarly impact, as measured by the h index, and successful National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding awarded to faculty in neurological surgery departments. Methods Primary investigators receiving National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards from Fiscal Years 2011–2013 were organized by academic rank, terminal degree, and their h index, as calculated from the Scopus database. These data were also obtained for nonfunded faculty from 15 randomly selected departments for comparison, and the average h index for each group was calculated. Results National Institutes of Health–funded faculty had higher average h indices than their nonfunded colleagues (23.6 vs 10.8, p < 0.0001), a finding that persisted upon controlling for academic rank. The mean h index increased with successive academic rank in both cohorts; greater funding totals were seen with successive academic position (Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.05). National Institutes of Health–funded MDs had higher h indices than their PhD colleagues (p = 0.04), although funding levels did not differ significantly. There was a trend of increasing h index with higher NIH-funding ranges (p < 0.05). Conclusions The authors' findings demonstrate a strong relationship between scholarly impact and securing NIH funding among faculty in academic neurosurgical departments. Faculty receiving a greater amount of funding tended to have a higher h index. Mean scholarly impact, as measured by the h index, increased with successive academic rank among both NIH-funded and nonfunded faculty, suggesting that this bibliometric may have utility as an adjunct in the academic appointment and promotion process in academic neurological surgery.

show abstract

Research productivity in neurosurgery: trends in globalization, scientific focus, and funding

Cited by 56 publications

References 29 publications

Changes in stroke research productivity: A global perspective

Changes in stroke research productivity: A global perspective

Publication analysis on insomnia: how much has been done in the past two decades?

Assessing National Institutes of Health funding and scholarly impact in neurological surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About