title: The Impact of National Institutes of Health Funding on Scholarly Productivity in Academic Plastic Surgery.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The h-index is an objective measure of an investigator's scholarly impact. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the association between scholarly impact, as measured by the h-index, and the procurement of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding among academic plastic surgeons.
  
  
  METHODS
  This was a case-control study of NIH-funded plastic surgery faculty identified on the RePORTER database. Non-NIH-funded faculty from the top 10 NIH-funded programs served as a control group. The mean h-index was calculated from Scopus (Elsevier, London, United Kingdom) and compared by funding status, academic rank, and terminal degree(s). The relationship between h-index and career NIH funding was elucidated via Spearman's correlation coefficient.
  
  
  RESULTS
  NIH-funded faculty had higher h-indices than nonNIH-funded faculty (23.9 versus 9.9, p < 0.001), an effect that persisted when controlling for academic rank. Higher rank correlated with higher h-indices and predicted greater NIH funding (p < 0.05). The h-index did not vary by terminal degree (p > 0.05), but investigators with a master's degree exhibited a trend toward greater NIH funding. Higher h-indices correlated with greater NIH funding (r = 0.481, p < 0.001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  A strong relationship exists between scholarly impact and the procurement of NIH funding. Faculty with greater funding had greater scholarly impact, as measured by the h-index, which suggests that this tool may have utility during the NIH grant application process.
authors.affiliation: Philadelphia, Pa. From the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.
authors.forename: Jason
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Silvestre
authors.forename: Joseph M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Abbatematteo
authors.forename: Benjamin
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Chang
authors.forename: Joseph M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Serletti
authors.forename: Jesse A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Taylor
mesh_terms: D016022:Case-Control Studies; D004526:Efficiency; D009316:National Institutes of Health (U.S.); D011643:Publishing / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D012109:Research Support as Topic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013518:Surgery, Plastic; D014481:United States
references.citation: Atasoylu AA, Wright SM, Beasley BW, et al. Promotion criteria for clinician-educators. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:711–716
references.citation: Baldwin C, Chandran L, Gusic M. Guidelines for evaluating the educational performance of medical school faculty: Priming a national conversation. Teach Learn Med. 2011;23:285–297
references.citation: Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:16569–16572
references.citation: Gast KM, Kuzon WM Jr, Adelman EE, Waljee JF. Influence of training institution on academic affiliation and productivity among plastic surgery faculty in the United States. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:570–578
references.citation: Gast KM, Kuzon WM Jr, Waljee JF. Bibliometric indices and academic promotion within plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:838e–844e
references.citation: Kotchen TA, Lindquist T, Malik K, Ehrenfeld E. NIH peer review of grant applications for clinical research. JAMA. 2004;291:836–843
references.citation: Mann M, Tendulkar A, Birger N, Howard C, Ratcliffe MB. National Institutes of Health funding for surgical research. Ann Surg. 2008;247:217–221
references.citation: Larson KE, Gastman B. Sources of federal funding in plastic and reconstructive surgery research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:1289–1294
references.citation: Hicks D, Tomizawa H, Saitoh Y, Kobayashi S. Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of federally funded research in the United States. Res Evaluat. 2004;13:78–86
references.citation: Sahel JA. Quality versus quantity: Assessing individual research performance. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3:84cm13
references.citation: Cheek J, Garnham B, Quan J. What’s in a number? Issues in providing evidence of impact and quality of research(ers). Qual Health Res. 2006;16:423–435
references.citation: Hromas R, Abkowitz JL, Keating A. Facing the NIH funding crisis: How professional societies can help. JAMA. 2012;308:2343–2344
references.citation: Germain RN. Healing the NIH-funded biomedical research enterprise. Cell. 2015;161:1485–1491
references.citation: Svider PF, Pashkova AA, Choudhry Z, et al. Comparison of scholarly impact among surgical specialties: An examination of 2429 academic surgeons. Laryngoscope. 2013;123:884–889
references.citation: Zemlo TR, Garrison HH, Partridge NC, Ley TJ. The physician-scientist: Career issues and challenges at the year 2000. FASEB J. 2000;14:221–230
references.citation: Svider PF, Husain Q, Folbe AJ, Couldwell WT, Liu JK, Eloy JA. Assessing National Institutes of Health funding and scholarly impact in neurological surgery. J Neurosurg. 2014;120:191–196
references.citation: Svider PF, Lopez SA, Husain Q, Bhagat N, Eloy JA, Langer PD. The association between scholarly impact and National Institutes of Health funding in ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:423–428
references.citation: Silvestre J, Tomlinson-Hansen S, Fosnot J, Taylor JA. Plastic surgery residency websites: A critical analysis of accessibility and content. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72:265–269
references.citation: Stavrakis AI, Patel AD, Burke ZD, et al. The role of chairman and research director in influencing scholarly productivity and research funding in academic orthopaedic surgery. J Orthop Res. 2015;33:1407–1411
references.citation: Jayakrishnan TT, Green DE, Hwang M, et al. Effect of the experience of surgical chairpersons on departmental National Institutes of Health funding. J Surg Res. 2014;192:293–297