scholarly journals Examining the Otolaryngology Match and Relationships Between Publications and Institutional Rankings

OTO Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 2473974X2093249
Author(s):  
Evan M. Ryan ◽  
Katie R. Geelan-Hansen ◽  
Kari L. Nelson ◽  
Jayme R. Dowdall
Keyword(s):  
Medical School ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
High Ranking ◽  
Home Institution ◽  
Publication Number ◽  
School Research ◽  
World Report ◽  
Top 40 ◽  
Nih Funding

This study examines associations among publication number, National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding rank, medical school research rank, and otolaryngology department ranks of otolaryngology applicants during the 2018-2019 match cycle. Information regarding 2018-2019 otolaryngology applicants was collected from Otomatch.com and verified via department websites. Information was also collected regarding 2018 NIH funding rank and 2020 US News & World Report research rank of medical schools and otolaryngology departments. T tests and chi-square analyses were performed. Top 40 NIH funding rank, top 40 medical school research rank, and home institution department rank were separately associated with more publications and higher rates of matching into highly reputed otolaryngology departments (all P < .01). Furthermore, applicants who matched into ranked otolaryngology departments averaged significantly more publications ( P < .01). Prospective otolaryngology applicants should take into account NIH funding rank, medical school research rank, and otolaryngology department rank, as they are associated with matching into high-ranking institutions.

Which medical schools produce the most neurosurgery residents? An analysis of the 2014–2020 cohort

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Albert Antar ◽  
James Feghali ◽  
Elizabeth E. Wicks ◽  
Shahab Aldin Sattari ◽  
Sean Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical School ◽  
Interest Group ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Medical Schools ◽  
Absolute Number ◽  
School Characteristics ◽  
Medical Graduates ◽  
World Report ◽  
Nih Funding ◽  
Vanderbilt University

OBJECTIVE In this study, the authors sought to determine which US medical schools have produced the most neurosurgery residents and to evaluate potential associations between recruitment and medical school characteristics. METHODS Demographic and bibliometric characteristics were collected for 1572 residents in US-based and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)–accredited neurosurgery programs over the 2014 to 2020 match period using publicly available websites. US medical school characteristics were collected, including class size, presence of a home neurosurgery program, number of clinical neurosurgery faculty, research funding, presence of a neurosurgery interest group, and a top 10 ranking via U.S. News & World Report or Doximity. Correlations and associations were then evaluated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (PCC), independent-samples t-test, and univariable or stepwise multivariable linear regression, as appropriate. RESULTS Vanderbilt University produced the most neurosurgery residents as a percentage of medical graduates at 3.799%. Case Western Reserve University produced the greatest absolute number of neurosurgery residents (n = 40). The following factors were shown to be associated with a higher mean percentage of graduates entering neurosurgery: number of clinical neurosurgery faculty (PCC 0.509, p < 0.001), presence of a neurosurgery interest group (1.022% ± 0.737% vs 0.351% ± 0.327%, p < 0.001) or home neurosurgery program (1.169% ± 0.766% vs 0.428% ± 0.327%, p < 0.001), allopathic compared with osteopathic school (0.976% ± 0.719% vs 0.232% ± 0.272%, p < 0.001), U.S. News top 10 ranking for neurology and neurosurgery (1.923% ± 0.924% vs 0.757% ± 0.607%, p < 0.001), Doximity top 10 residency program ranking (1.715% ± 0.803% vs 0.814% ± 0.688%, p < 0.001), and amount of NIH funding (PCC 0.528, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The results of this study have delineated which medical schools produced the most neurosurgery residents currently in training, and the most important independent factors predicting the percentage of graduates entering neurosurgery and the preresidency h-index.

scholarly journals Association between physician US News & World Report medical school ranking and patient outcomes and costs of care: observational study

BMJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. k3640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yusuke Tsugawa ◽  
Daniel M Blumenthal ◽  
Ashish K Jha ◽  
E John Orav ◽  
Anupam B Jena
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Healthcare Spending ◽  
Readmission Rates ◽  
Social Mission ◽  
World Report ◽  
Nih Funding

Abstract Objective To investigate whether the US News & World Report (USNWR) ranking of the medical school a physician attended is associated with patient outcomes and healthcare spending. Design Observational study. Setting Medicare, 2011-15. Participants 20% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older (n=996 212), who were admitted as an emergency to hospital with a medical condition and treated by general internists. Main outcome measures Association between the USNWR ranking of the medical school a physician attended and the physician’s patient outcomes (30 day mortality and 30 day readmission rates) and Medicare Part B spending, adjusted for patient and physician characteristics and hospital fixed effects (which effectively compared physicians practicing within the same hospital). A sensitivity analysis employed a natural experiment by focusing on patients treated by hospitalists, because patients are plausibly randomly assigned to hospitalists based on their specific work schedules. Alternative rankings of medical schools based on social mission score or National Institute of Health (NIH) funding were also investigated. Results 996 212 admissions treated by 30 322 physicians were examined for the analysis of mortality. When using USNWR primary care rankings, physicians who graduated from higher ranked schools had slightly lower 30 day readmission rates (adjusted rate 15.7% for top 10 schools v 16.1% for schools ranked ≥50; adjusted risk difference 0.4%, 95% confidence interval 0.1% to 0.8%; P for trend=0.005) and lower spending (adjusted Part B spending $1029 (£790; €881) v $1066; adjusted difference $36, 95% confidence interval $20 to $52; P for trend <0.001) compared with graduates of lower ranked schools, but no difference in 30 day mortality. When using USNWR research rankings, physicians graduating from higher ranked schools had slightly lower healthcare spending than graduates from lower ranked schools, but no differences in patient mortality or readmissions. A sensitivity analysis restricted to patients treated by hospitalists yielded similar findings. Little or no relation was found between alternative rankings (based on social mission score or NIH funding) and patient outcomes or costs of care. Conclusions Overall, little or no relation was found between the USNWR ranking of the medical school from which a physician graduated and subsequent patient mortality or readmission rates. Physicians who graduated from highly ranked medical schools had slightly lower spending than graduates of lower ranked schools.

Creation of a comprehensive training and career development approach to increase the number of neurosurgeons supported by National Institutes of Health funding

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Russell R. Lonser ◽  
Luke G. F. Smith ◽  
Michael Tennekoon ◽  
Kavon P. Rezai-Zadeh ◽  
Jeffrey G. Ojemann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Fold Increase ◽  
Early Career ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Academic Departments ◽  
Research Education ◽  
Grant Support ◽  
Development Approach ◽  
Comprehensive Programs ◽  
Nih Funding

OBJECTIVETo increase the number of independent National Institutes of Health (NIH)–funded neurosurgeons and to enhance neurosurgery research, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) developed two national comprehensive programs (R25 [established 2009] for residents/fellows and K12 [2013] for early-career neurosurgical faculty) in consultation with neurosurgical leaders and academic departments to support in-training and early-career neurosurgeons. The authors assessed the effectiveness of these NINDS-initiated programs to increase the number of independent NIH-funded neurosurgeon-scientists and grow NIH neurosurgery research funding.METHODSNIH funding data for faculty and clinical department funding were derived from the NIH, academic departments, and Blue Ridge Institute of Medical Research databases from 2006 to 2019.RESULTSBetween 2009 and 2019, the NINDS R25 funded 87 neurosurgical residents. Fifty-three (61%) have completed the award and training, and 39 (74%) are in academic practice. Compared to neurosurgeons who did not receive R25 funding, R25 awardees were twice as successful (64% vs 31%) in obtaining K-series awards and received the K-series award in a significantly shorter period of time after training (25.2 ± 10.1 months vs 53.9 ± 23.0 months; p < 0.004). Between 2013 and 2019, the NINDS K12 has supported 19 neurosurgeons. Thirteen (68%) have finished their K12 support and all (100%) have applied for federal funding. Eleven (85%) have obtained major individual NIH grant support. Since the establishment of these two programs, the number of unique neurosurgeons supported by either individual (R01 or DP-series) or collaborative (U- or P-series) NIH grants increased from 36 to 82 (a 2.3-fold increase). Overall, NIH funding to clinical neurological surgery departments between 2006 and 2019 increased from $66.9 million to $157.3 million (a 2.2-fold increase).CONCLUSIONSTargeted research education and career development programs initiated by the NINDS led to a rapid and dramatic increase in the number of NIH-funded neurosurgeon-scientists and total NIH neurosurgery department funding.

NIH Funding Ranked “Per Capita”: An Alternative Method for Assessing Research Productivity

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-60
Author(s):  
Kristine M. Kulage ◽  
Joshua R. Massei ◽  
Elaine L. Larson
Keyword(s):  
Faculty Member ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Alternative Method ◽  
Schools Of Nursing ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
Nih Funding ◽  
Member School ◽  
Total Average

Ordinal rankings of schools of nursing by research funding in total dollars awarded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a common metric for demonstrating research productivity; however, these data are not based on the number of doctorally prepared faculty eligible to apply for funding. Therefore, we examined an alternative method for measuring research productivity which accounts for size differences in schools: NIH funding ranked “per capita.” We extracted data on total average funding and compared them with average funding secured per faculty member across top-ranked schools of nursing in the United States from 2013 to 2017. When examining data by number of doctorally prepared faculty, 4 of 12 (33%) schools that ranked lower in total average funding ranked higher in average funding per faculty member. School size is an important but neglected factor in current funding rankings; therefore, we encourage schools to use multiple approaches to track their research productivity.

Effects of steroids on the course of hereditary muscular dystrophy in mice

1964 ◽  
Vol 207 (6) ◽  
pp. 1451-1451
Author(s):  
Robert M. Dowben ◽  
Leon Zuckerman ◽  
Paul Gordon ◽  
Stephen P. Sniderman
Keyword(s):  
Muscular Dystrophy ◽  
Medical School ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
University Of Michigan ◽  
Health Training ◽  
Ann Arbor ◽  
Chicago Medical ◽  
Training Grant

Page 1049: Footnotes 3 and 4 for authors Paul Gordon and Stephen P. Sniderman, respectively, should be transposed to read, for Paul Gordon: Fellow of the MEDRA Foundation. Present address: Dept. of Pharmacology, Chicago Medical School, Chicago 12, Ill. For Stephen P. Sniderman: Trainee in Metabolism under National Institutes of Health Training Grant 2A-5071. Present address: University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor, Mich.

scholarly journals National Institutes of Health Funding for Tobacco Control: 2006 and 2016

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-284
Author(s):  
Ashley L. Merianos ◽  
Judith S. Gordon ◽  
Kelsi J. Wood ◽  
E. Melinda Mahabee-Gittens
Keyword(s):  
Tobacco Control ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
Topic Area ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Frequency Distributions ◽  
Blood Institute ◽  
National Heart Lung ◽  
Nih Funding

Purpose: The study objective was to describe and compare changes in newly funded National Institutes of Health (NIH) tobacco-related awards between fiscal year (FY) 2006 and FY2016. Design: Secondary analysis of NIH data. Setting: National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool database was used. Subjects: National Institutes of Health tobacco-related awards newly funded during FY2006 and FY2016. Measures: Search terms included tobacco, smoking, nicotine, secondhand smoke, and e-cigarettes. Grants and funding amounts were retrieved. Analysis: We calculated frequency distributions to determine the number and percentage of total NIH grants funded overall and by specific institute, and inflation-adjusted total and median funding amounts. We computed percentage differences in number of new grants, funding amounts, and percentage of funding allocated overall, and by institute. Results: There was a 187% increase in the percentage of total NIH funding allocated to new tobacco-related awards from 0.09% in FY2006 to 0.25% in FY2016. Total number of awards increased by 67% in FY2016 (n = 144; $56 015 931) compared to FY2006 (n = 86; $22 076 987), and there was a 154% increase in inflation-adjusted total funding for tobacco control. The top funding institutes were National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Cancer Institute; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism was third in FY2006; and National, Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in FY2016. Research grants were the most frequently funded. Smoking cessation was a common topic area and increased by 64%. Conclusion: NIH funding is critical for advancing the science of nicotine and tobacco research.

Medical School Enrollments and Admissions Policies

1987 ◽  
Author(s):  
William G. Rothstein
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Medical Schools ◽  
Federal Aid ◽  
World War ◽  
Research Grants ◽  
School Research ◽  
Research Facilities

After shortages of physicians developed in the 1950s and 1960s, federal and state governments undertook programs to increase the number of medical students. Government funding led to the creation of many new medical schools and to substantial enrollment increases in existing schools. Medical schools admitted larger numbers of women, minority, and low-income students. The impact of medical schools on the career choices of students has been limited. Federal funding for medical research immediately after World War II was designed to avoid politically controversial issues like federal aid for medical education and health care. The 1947 Steelman report on medical research noted that it did not examine “equally important” problems, such as financial assistance for medical education, equal access to health care, continuing medical education for physicians, or “the mass application of science to the prevention of many communicable diseases.” The same restraints prevailed with regard to early federal aid for the construction of medical school research facilities. Some medical school research facilities were built with the help of federal funds during and after World War II, but the first federal legislation specifically designed to fund construction of medical school research facilities was the Health Research Facilities Act of 1956. It provided matching grants equal to 50 percent of the cost of research facilities and equipment, and benefited practically all medical schools. In 1960, medical schools received $13.8 million to construct research facilities. This may be compared to $106.4 million for research grants and $41.5 million for research training grants in the same year. Federal grants for research and research training were often used for other activities. As early as 1951, the Surgeon General's Committee on Medical School Grants and Finances reported that “Public Health Service grants have undoubtedly improved some aspects of undergraduate instruction in every medical school,” with most of the improvements resulting from training rather than research grants. By the early 1970s, according to Freymann, of $1.3 billion given to medical schools for research, “about $800 million was 'redeployed' into institutional and departmental support. . . . The distinction between research and education became as fluid as the imagination of the individual grantees wished it to be.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document