TY - JOUR
T1 - Setting the Standards
T2 - Examining Research Productivity Among Academic Urologists in the USA and Canada in 2019
AU - Chandrasekar, Thenappan
AU - Han, Timothy M.
AU - Glick, Lydia
AU - Leong, Joon Yau
AU - Teplitsky, Seth
AU - Noorani, Rodrigo
AU - Goldberg, Hanan
AU - Klaassen, Zachary
AU - Wallis, Christopher J.D.
AU - Mark, James R.
AU - Trabulsi, Edouard J.
AU - Lallas, Costas D.
AU - Gomella, Leonard G.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 European Association of Urology
PY - 2021/3
Y1 - 2021/3
N2 - Background: Research productivity among academic urologists is strongly encouraged, but little data are available on productivity metrics within the field. Objective: To provide the first comprehensive survey of research productivity among academic urologists in the USA and Canada. Design, setting, and participants: Using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the Canadian Resident Matching Service, and individual program websites, all active accredited urology faculties were identified. For each individual, we collected data on American Urological Association section, title, gender, fellowship training, Scopus H-index, and citations. Comprehensive searches were completed during March–May 2019. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Descriptive statistics for demographic comparisons were performed using analysis of variance for continuous variables and chi‐square test for categorical variables. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify the predictors of H-index greater than the median. Results and limitations: A total of 2214 academic urology faculties (2015 in USA and 199 in Canada) were identified. The median and mean H-indices for the entire cohort of physicians were 11 and 16.1, respectively. On multivariable analysis, physicians in the North Central and Western Sections (vs mid-Atlantic), who were fellowship trained (vs no fellowship training), and of higher academic rank (professor and associate professor vs clinical instructor) were more likely to have H-index values greater than the median. Additionally, female physicians (vs male) were more likely to have H-index values less than the median. Conclusions: This study represents the first comprehensive assessment of research productivity metrics among academic urologists. These represent key benchmarks for trainees considering careers in academics and for practicing physicians gauging their own productivity in relation to their peers. Patient summary: In this study, we provide the first comprehensive assessment of research productivity among academic urologists in the USA and Canada. Our results help provide key benchmarks for trainees considering careers in academics and for practicing physicians gauging their own productivity in relation to peers.
AB - Background: Research productivity among academic urologists is strongly encouraged, but little data are available on productivity metrics within the field. Objective: To provide the first comprehensive survey of research productivity among academic urologists in the USA and Canada. Design, setting, and participants: Using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the Canadian Resident Matching Service, and individual program websites, all active accredited urology faculties were identified. For each individual, we collected data on American Urological Association section, title, gender, fellowship training, Scopus H-index, and citations. Comprehensive searches were completed during March–May 2019. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Descriptive statistics for demographic comparisons were performed using analysis of variance for continuous variables and chi‐square test for categorical variables. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify the predictors of H-index greater than the median. Results and limitations: A total of 2214 academic urology faculties (2015 in USA and 199 in Canada) were identified. The median and mean H-indices for the entire cohort of physicians were 11 and 16.1, respectively. On multivariable analysis, physicians in the North Central and Western Sections (vs mid-Atlantic), who were fellowship trained (vs no fellowship training), and of higher academic rank (professor and associate professor vs clinical instructor) were more likely to have H-index values greater than the median. Additionally, female physicians (vs male) were more likely to have H-index values less than the median. Conclusions: This study represents the first comprehensive assessment of research productivity metrics among academic urologists. These represent key benchmarks for trainees considering careers in academics and for practicing physicians gauging their own productivity in relation to their peers. Patient summary: In this study, we provide the first comprehensive assessment of research productivity among academic urologists in the USA and Canada. Our results help provide key benchmarks for trainees considering careers in academics and for practicing physicians gauging their own productivity in relation to peers.
KW - Academic medicine
KW - Academic success
KW - Academic training
KW - Citations
KW - H-index
KW - Professor
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85080120988&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85080120988&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.euf.2020.02.003
DO - 10.1016/j.euf.2020.02.003
M3 - Article
C2 - 32113885
AN - SCOPUS:85080120988
SN - 2405-4569
VL - 7
SP - 489
EP - 496
JO - European Urology Focus
JF - European Urology Focus
IS - 2
ER -