Evaluation of the National Institutes of Health-supported relative citation ratio among American orthopedic spine surgery faculty: A new bibliometric measure of scientific influence

Christopher N Dijanic; Suleiman Y Sudah; Christopher R Michel; Tiffany A Smith; Aneesh Patankar; Joseph E Manzi; Robert D Faccone; Daniel J Kerrigan; Mariano E Menendez; Jason Cohen

doi:10.1016/j.xnsj.2022.100143

Evaluation of the National Institutes of Health-supported relative citation ratio among American orthopedic spine surgery faculty: A new bibliometric measure of scientific influence

N Am Spine Soc J. 2022 Jul 14:11:100143. doi: 10.1016/j.xnsj.2022.100143. eCollection 2022 Sep.

Affiliations

¹ Department of Orthopedics, Monmouth Medical Center, Long Branch, NJ, USA.
² Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
³ Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
⁴ Department of Research, Alabama College of Osteopathic Medicine, Dothan, AL, USA.
⁵ Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Rush University, Chicago, IL, USA.
⁶ Professional Orthopedic Associates, Tinton Falls, NJ, USA.

Abstract

Background: Publication metrics have been traditionally used to compare research productivity amongst academic faculty. However, traditional bibliometrics lack field-normalization and are often biased towards time-dependent publication factors. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has developed a new, field-normalized, article-level metric, known as the "relative citation ratio" (RCR), that can be used to make accurate self, departmental, and cross-specialty comparisons of research productivity. This study evaluates the use of the RCR amongst academic orthopedic spine surgery faculty and analyzes physician factors associated with RCR values.

Methods: A retrospective data analysis was performed using the iCite database for all fellowship trained orthopedic spine surgery (OSS) faculty associated with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited orthopedic surgery residency program. Mean RCR, weighted RCR, and total publication count were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and presence of additional degrees. A value of 1.0 is the NIH-funded field-normalized standard. Student t-tests were used for two-group analyses whereas the analysis of variance tests (ANOVA) was used for between-group comparisons of three or more subgroups. Statistical significance was achieved at P < 0.05.

Results: A total of 502 academic OSS faculty members from 159 institutions were included in the analysis. Overall, OSS faculty were highly productive, with a median RCR of 1.62 (IQR 1.38-2.32) and a median weighted RCR of 68.98 (IQR 21.06-212.70). Advancing academic rank was associated with weighted RCR, career longevity was associated with mean RCR score, and male sex was associated with having increased mean and weighted RCR scores. All subgroups analyzed had an RCR value above 1.0.

Conclusions: Academic orthopedic spine surgery faculty produce impactful research as evidenced by the high median RCR relative to the standard value set by the NIH of 1.0. Our data can be used to evaluate research productivity in the orthopedic spine community.

Keywords: Bibliometric; Orthopedic surgery; Relative citation ratio (RCR); Research productivity; Spine; Spine surgery.