ArticleSurgery2017
Surgery investigators funded through the National Institutes of Health: A rebirth.
Article in Surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Grantsmanship Refined: Evaluation and Training of Efficacy in Residents (Greater Study).Journal of surgical education · 2026Article
- Where You Train Matters: Surgeon-Scientists Disproportionately Trained at Highly Funded Institutions.Annals of surgery · 2025Article
- Diminishing Basic Science Research Experience Among United States Cardiothoracic Surgery Trainees.The Journal of surgical research · 2022Article
- Top ten strategies to enhance grant-writing success.Surgery · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFunding toward surgical research through the National Institutes of Health has decreased relative to other medical specialties. This study was initiated to characterize features of academically successful surgeon-scientists and departments of surgery. We hypothesized that there may be decreases in young investigators obtaining independent National Institutes of Health awards and that successful academic departments of surgery may be depending increasingly on PhD faculty.
methodsThe National Institutes of Health RePORTER database was queried for grants awarded to departments of surgery during fiscal years 2003 and 2013. Grant summaries were categorized by research methodology. Training of the principal investigator and academic position were determined through the RePORTER database and publicly available academic biographies. Institutions were ranked by number of grants funded.
resultsBetween 2003 and 2013, total surgery grants awarded decreased by 19%. The number of National Institutes of Health-funded, clinically active surgeons (MDs) decreased 11%, while funded PhDs increased 9%; however, clinically active junior faculty have comprised an increasing proportion of funded MDs (from 20-38%). Shifts in research topics include an increasing proportion of investigators engaged in outcomes research. Among institutions ranking in the top 20 for surgical research in both 2003 and 2013 (N = 15), the ratio of MDs to PhDs was 2:1 in both fiscal years. Among institutions falling out of the top 20, this ratio was less than 1:1.
conclusionThere has been an expansion of outcomes-based surgical research. The most consistently successful institutions are those that actively cultivate MD researchers. Encouragingly, the number of young, independently funded surgeon-scientists in America appears to be increasing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.