Setting the Standards: Examining Research Productivity Among Academic Urologists in the USA and Canada in 2019.

Authors

Thenappan Chandrasekar, Thomas Jefferson UniversityFollow
Timothy M. Han, Thomas Jefferson UniversityFollow
Lydia Glick, Thomas Jefferson UniversityFollow
Joon Yau Leong, Thomas Jefferson UniversityFollow
Seth Teplitsky, Thomas Jefferson UniversityFollow
Rodrigo Noorani, University of Toronto
Hanan Goldberg, State University of New York Upstate Medical University
Zachary Klaassen, Augusta University-Medical College of Georgia
Christopher J.D. Wallis, Vanderbilt University Medical Center
James R. Mark, Thomas Jefferson UniversityFollow
Edouard J. Trabulsi, Thomas Jefferson UniversityFollow
Costas D. Lallas, Thomas Jefferson UniversityFollow
Leonard G. Gomella, Thomas Jefferson UniversityFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2-26-2020

Comments

This article is the authors' final version prior to publication in European Urology Focus, February 2020.

The published version is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.02.003. Copyright © Chandrasekar et al.

Abstract

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.

Recommended Citation

Chandrasekar, Thenappan; Han, Timothy M.; Glick, Lydia; Leong, Joon Yau; Teplitsky, Seth; Noorani, Rodrigo; Goldberg, Hanan; Klaassen, Zachary; Wallis, Christopher J.D.; Mark, James R.; Trabulsi, Edouard J.; Lallas, Costas D.; and Gomella, Leonard G., "Setting the Standards: Examining Research Productivity Among Academic Urologists in the USA and Canada in 2019." (2020). Department of Urology Faculty Papers. Paper 56.
https://jdc.jefferson.edu/urologyfp/56

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

PubMed ID

32113885

Language

English