ArticleJTCVS open2022
Quantitative goals for research output and scholarly impact to enhance basic science R01 grant renewal for cardiothoracic surgeons.
Article in JTCVS open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diminishing Basic Science Research Experience Among United States Cardiothoracic Surgery Trainees.The Journal of surgical research · 2022Article
- Impact of PhD Degree Versus Non-PhD Research Fellowship on Future Research Productivity Among Academic Cardiothoracic Surgeons.World journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Commentary: How do you get your grant refunded?JTCVS open · 2022Article
- Commentary: Beating the odds: Success in extramural funding renewal.JTCVS open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Cardiothoracic (CT) surgeons with National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 funding face a highly competitive renewal process. The factors that contribute to successful grant renewal for CT surgeons remain poorly defined. We hypothesized that renewed basic science grants are associated with high research output and scholarly impact during the preceding award cycle. Methods: Using a database of academic CT surgeons (n = 992) at accredited training institutions in 2018, we identified basic science R01 grants awarded to CT surgeon principal investigators since 1985. Data for each award were obtained from publicly available online sources. Scholarly impact was evaluated using the NIH-validated relative citation ratio (RCR), defined as an article's citation rate divided by that of R01-funded publications in the same field. Continuous data are presented as medians and analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test. Results: We identified 102 basic science R01 award cycles, including 33 that were renewed (32.4%). Renewed and nonrenewed awards had a similar start year and funding period. Principal investigators of renewed versus nonrenewed awards were similar in surgical subspecialty, research training, attending experience, academic rank, and previous NIH funding. Renewed awards produced more publications per year over the funding cycle (3.4 vs 1.5; Conclusions: CT surgery basic science R01 grants are associated with high research output and scholarly impact. At the 50th percentile among renewed grants, CT surgeons published 3.4 funded manuscripts per year with a median RCR of 0.84 during the previous award cycle.
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.