Premium
Academic Productivity of US Cardiothoracic Surgical Centers
Author(s) -
Rosati Carlo Maria,
Vardas Panos N.,
Gaudino Mario,
Tahboub Mohammad T.,
Blitzer David,
Girardi Leonard N.,
Turrentine Mark W.,
Brown John W.,
Koniaris Leonidas G.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of cardiac surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.428
H-Index - 58
eISSN - 1540-8191
pISSN - 0886-0440
DOI - 10.1111/jocs.12773
Subject(s) - medicine , productivity , index (typography) , quartile , ranking (information retrieval) , cardiothoracic surgery , honor , family medicine , surgery , economic growth , confidence interval , machine learning , world wide web , computer science , economics , operating system
Background and Aim We investigated which metrics represent valid correlates of the academic productivity of cardiothoracic (CT) surgical centers. Methods We collected data from 57 US academic CT surgical groups (663 surgeons), including H index and institutional role of each surgeon, ranking by US News & World Report (USNWR) and NIH funding, and designation as department versus division. Results Academic productivity (median H‐index of each group) was significantly different across institutions (p < 0.001). Several USNWR hospital categories (“Honor Roll”, “Adult Cardiology and Heart Surgery”, “Adult Pulmonology”, “Adult Cancer”) and medical school ranking for research were associated with differences in academic productivity, while ranking by NIH funding or designation as department versus division was not. Groups with chairperson's individual H‐index ≥50 were overall more productive than those with chairperson's H‐index <50 (median H‐index: 18 vs. 14; p = 0.005). Conclusions USNWR rankings provide a good representation of academic productivity, while NIH funding ranking or designation as department versus division does not. The individual productivity of the chairperson is correlated with that of the whole group. doi: 10.1111/jocs.12773 (J Card Surg 2016;31:423–428)