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

Haislup, Brett D.; Trent, Sarah; Sequeira, Sean B.; Murthi, Anand M.; Wright, Melissa A.

doi:10.1016/j.jse.2022.06.019

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These same findings apply to shoulder and elbow surgey. 9 Our data serve to bolster these findings, as we included only nonresearch payments in our analysis, demonstrating a lack of association within foot and ankle surgery between H-index and cumulative nonresearch payments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Evaluating the Correlation Between Various Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Fellowship Characteristics and Total Industry Payments Through the Open Payments Database

Anastasio,

Baumann,

Walley

et al. 2023

Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Since the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, a substantial body of work has explored the supplemental income received by physicians to understand trends in industry payments and investigate sources of bias. To date, no study has examined how various fellowship characteristics impact industry earning levels at foot and ankle orthopaedic surgery fellowships. The purpose of this study is to examine the various fellowship and faculty-specific variables in correlation with industry earnings in foot and ankle orthopaedic surgery fellowships. Methods: This study is a retrospective analysis of foot and ankle orthopaedic surgery fellowships and respective faculty along with various fellowship characteristics in correlation to industry lifetime earning levels as of March 2023. Industry total lifetime earnings represent income directly paid to physicians, is not part of the physician's salary, and does not include any research grants or funding. Lifetime earnings represent all years recorded on the Open Payments Database website (2015-2021). Results: There are 165 faculty physicians and 48 programs with complete data out of all foot and ankle orthopaedic surgery fellowship programs in the United States. The mean fellowship H-Index per fellowship was 48.94 ± 38.92, and the mean fellowship lifetime earning was $1 551 791.66 ± $4 136 091.64. There was no significant association between fellowship lifetime earnings and Newsweek ranking of fellowship-affiliated hospitals (P = .906), Doximity ranking of fellowship-affiliated residencies (P = .703), and region of the United States (P = .126). There was a statistically significant increase in total lifetime earnings in programs with 4 fellows as compared to 1 fellow (P = .035). Conclusion: There was no statistically significant correlation between a variety of foot and ankle fellowship-specific factors and lifetime industry earnings, aside from increased earnings in programs having 4 fellows. Prestige factors, such as Doximity and Ranked Hospital Newsweek List rank, as well as region of the United States is not associated with industry earnings. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Evaluating the Correlation Between Various Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Fellowship Characteristics and Total Industry Payments Through the Open Payments Database

Anastasio,

Baumann,

Walley

et al. 2023

Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The orthopaedic literature has also demonstrated this trend with industry funding, showing a positive relationship between payments and both h-indices and citation rates. 14,15,23-25 Lieber et al 14 found that orthopaedic surgeons in 2015 receiving at least $20,000 (US dollars) from industry had significantly higher h-indices ( P < 0.001) and mean number of publications ( P < 0.001) compared with their counterparts receiving less than $20,000. Buerba et al 15 similarly found markedly higher h-indices and mean number of publications for those academic orthopaedic surgeons receiving industry and/or NIH funding compared with those surgeons not receiving such funding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Funding for Authors Achieving High Citations vs. Online Popularity

Farivar,

Vadhera,

Illingworth

et al. 2024

J Am Acad Orthop Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The Altmetric score is a validated tool that measures online attention of scientific studies. A relationship between government/industry funding for authors and their study's citations have been previously demonstrated. It is not known whether funding is related to greater online attention. We hypothesize authors publishing studies achieving greater online attention (higher Altmetric scores) receive greater monetary support from industry while authors publishing studies achieving critical acclaim (more citations) receive greater monetary support from the National Institute of Health (NIH). Methods: Top spine surgery studies between 2010 and 2021 were selected based on Altmetric scores and citation number. The Open Payments Database was accessed to evaluate industry financial relationships while the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was accessed to evaluate NIH funding. Payments were compared between groups and analyzed with the Student t-test, analysis of variance, and chi square analysis. Alpha <0.05. Results: There were 60 and 51 authors with payment data in the top 50 Altmetric and top 50 citation studies, respectively, with eight authors having studies in both groups. Total industry payments between groups were not markedly different. The eight authors with studies in both groups received markedly more industry payments for consulting, travel/lodging, and faculty/speaking fees. Authors with articles in both groups (50%) were significantly more likely to receive NIH support, compared with authors of the top Altmetric articles (5%; P < 0.001) and top citation articles (12%; P < 0.001). Authors receiving NIH support received significantly less industry payments compared with authors not receiving NIH support ($148,544 versus $2,159,526; P < 0.001). Discussion: These findings reject our hypothesis: no notable differences for industry payments and NIH funding between authors for top Altmetric and citation studies. Authors receiving funding from industry versus the NIH are generally two distinct groups, but there is a small group supported by both. These studies achieve both critical acclaim (citations) and online popularity (Altmetric scores). Data availability: Data can be available on reasonable request.

show abstract