Dataset Information

Quantifying federal funding and scholarly output related to the academic emergency medicine consensus conferences.

ABSTRACT: Every year since 2000, Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) has presented a one-day consensus conference to generate a research agenda for advancement of a scientific topic. One of the 12 annual issues of AEM is reserved for the proceedings of these conferences. The purpose of this study was to measure academic productivity of these conferences by evaluating subsequent federal research funding received by authors of conference manuscripts and calculating citation counts of conference papers.This was a cross-sectional study. In 2012, the NIH RePORTER system was searched to identify subsequent federal funding obtained by authors of the consensus conference issues from 2000 to 2010. Funded projects were coded as related or unrelated to conference topic. Citation counts for all conference manuscripts were quantified using Scopus and Google Scholar. Simple descriptive statistics were reported.Eight hundred fifty-two individual authors contributed to 280 papers published in the 11 consensus conference issues. One hundred thirty-seven authors (16%) obtained funding for 318 projects. A median of 22 topic-related projects per conference (range 10-97) accounted for a median of $20,488,331 per conference (range $7,779,512 to $122,918,205). The average (± SD) number of citations per paper was 15.7 ± 20.5 in Scopus and 23.7 ± 32.6 in Google Scholar.The authors of consensus conference manuscripts obtained significant federal grant support for follow-up research related to conference themes. In addition, the manuscripts generated by these conferences were frequently cited. Conferences devoted to research agenda development appear to be an academically worthwhile endeavor.

SUBMITTER: Nishijima DK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4018650 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quantifying federal funding and scholarly output related to the academic emergency medicine consensus conferences.

Nishijima Daniel K DK Dinh Tu T May Larissa L Yadav Kabir K Gaddis Gary M GM Cone David C DC

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 20140101 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>Every year since 2000, Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) has presented a one-day consensus conference to generate a research agenda for advancement of a scientific topic. One of the 12 annual issues of AEM is reserved for the proceedings of these conferences. The purpose of this study was to measure academic productivity of these conferences by evaluating subsequent federal research funding received by authors of conference manuscripts and calculating citation counts of conferenc ...[more]

PMID: 24280853

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEvaluating outcomes of the clinical and translational research (CTR) training of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hub (eg, the KL2 program) requires the selection of reliable, accessible, and standardized measures. As measures of scholarly success usually focus on publication output and extramural funding, CTSA hubs have started to use bibliometrics to evaluate the impact of their supported scholarly activities. However, the evaluation of KL2 programs across CTSAs is limited, and the use of bibliometrics and follow-on funding is minimal.ObjectiveThis study seeks to evaluate scholarly productivity, impact, and collaboration using bibliometrics and federal follow-on funding of KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA hubs and to define and assess CTR training success indicators.MethodsThe sample included KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA institutions (A-C). Bibliometric data for each scholar in the sample were collected from both SciVal and iCite, including scholarly productivity, citation impact, and research collaboration. Three federal follow-on funding measures (at the 5-year, 8-year, and overall time points) were collected internally and confirmed by examining a federal funding database. Both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were computed using SPSS to assess the bibliometric and federal follow-on funding results.ResultsA total of 143 KL2 scholars were included in the sample with relatively equal groups across the 3 CTSA institutions. The included KL2 scholars produced more publications and citation counts per year on average at the 8-year time point (3.75 publications and 26.44 citation counts) than the 5-year time point (3.4 publications vs 26.16 citation counts). Overall, the KL2 publications from all 3 institutions were cited twice as much as others in their fields based on the relative citation ratio. KL2 scholars published work with researchers from other US institutions over 2 times (5-year time point) or 3.5 times (8-year time point) more than others in their research fields. Within 5 years and 8 years postmatriculation, 44.1% (63/143) and 51.7% (74/143) of KL2 scholars achieved federal funding, respectively. The KL2-scholars of Institution C had a significantly higher citation rate per publication than the other institutions (P<.001). Institution A had a significantly lower rate of nationally field-weighted collaboration than did the other institutions (P<.001). Institution B scholars were more likely to have received federal funding than scholars at Institution A or C (P<.001).ConclusionsMulti-institutional data showed a high level of scholarly productivity, impact, collaboration, and federal follow-on funding achieved by KL2 scholars. This study provides insights on the use of bibliometric and federal follow-on funding data to evaluate CTR training success across institutions. CTSA KL2 programs and other CTR career training programs can benefit from these findings in terms of understanding metrics of career success and using that knowledge to develop highly targeted strategies to support early-stage career development of CTR investigators.

Project description:The National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia (NIAA) was founded in 2008 to lead a UK strategy for developing academic anaesthesia. We aimed to assess the distribution of applications and quantify the academic returns of NIAA-supported research grants, as this has hitherto not been analysed. We sought data on the baseline characteristics of all grant applicants and recipients. Every grant recipient from 2008 to 2015 was contacted to ascertain the status of their supported research projects. We also examined Google Scholar, Scopus® database and InCites Journal Citation Reports for citation, author and journal metrics, respectively. In total, 495 research project applications were made, with 150 grants being awarded. Data on 121 out of 150 (80.7%) grant awards, accounting for £3.5 million, were collected, of which 91 completed studies resulted in 140 publications and 2759 citations. The median (IQR [range]) time to first or only publication was 3 (2-4 [0-9]) years. The overall cost per publication was £14,970 (£7457-£24,998 [£2212-£73,755]) and the cost per citation was £1515 (£323-£3785 [£70-£36,182]), with 1 (0-2 [0-8]) publication and 4 (0-25 [0-265]) citations resulting per grant. The impact factor of journals in which publications arose was 4.7 (2.5-6.2 [0-47.8]), with the highest impact arising from clinical and basic science studies, particularly in the fields of pain and peri-operative medicine. Grants were most frequently awarded to clinical and basic science categories of study, but in terms of specialty, critical care medicine and peri-operative medicine received the greatest number of grants. Superficially, there seemed a geographical disparity, with 123 (82%) grants being awarded to researchers in England, London receiving 48 (32%) of these. However, this was in proportion to the number of grant applications received by country or city of application, such that there was no significant difference in overall success rates. There was no significant difference in productivity in terms of publications and citations from grants awarded to each city. The 150 grants were awarded to 107 recipients (identified as the most senior applicant for each grant), 27 of whom received ≥ two grants. Recipients had a median career total of 21 (8-76 [0-254]) publications and 302 (44-1320 [0-8167]) citations, with an h-index of 8 (3-22 [0-54]). We conclude that a key determinant of grant success is simply applying. This is the first study to report the distribution and scholarly output of individual anaesthesia research grants, particularly from a collaborative body such as the NIAA, and can be used as a benchmark to further develop academic anaesthesia in the UK and beyond.

Project description:With the goal of reducing inequalities in patient care, the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) consensus conference, "Gender-Specific Research in Emergency Care: Investigate, Understand, and Translate How Gender Affects Patient Outcomes," convened a diverse group of researchers, clinicians, health care providers, patients, and representatives of federal agencies and policy-makers in Dallas, Texas, in May 2014. The executive and steering committees identified seven clinical domains as key to gender-specific emergency care: cardiovascular, neurological, trauma/injury, substance abuse, pain, mental health, and diagnostic imaging. The main aims of the conference were to: 1) summarize and consolidate current data related to sex- and gender-specific research for acute care and identify critical gender-related gaps in knowledge to inform an EM research agenda; 2) create a consensus-driven research agenda that advances sex- and gender-specific research in the prevention, diagnosis, and management of acute diseases and identify strategies to investigate them; and 3) build a multinational interdisciplinary consortium to disseminate and study the sex and gender medicine of acute conditions. Over a 2-year period, this collaborative network of stakeholders identified key areas where sex- and gender-specific research is most likely to improve clinical care and ultimately patient outcomes. The iterative consensus process culminated in a daylong conference on May 13, 2014, with a total of 133 registrants, with the majority being between ages 31 and 50 years (57%), females (71%), and whites (79%). Content experts led the consensus-building workshops at the conference and used the nominal group technique to consolidate consensus recommendations for priority research. In addition, panel sessions addressed funding mechanisms for gender-specific research as well as gender-specific regulatory challenges to product development and approval. This special issue of AEM reports the results of the 2014 consensus conference as well as related original research with the goal of bringing high-quality equitable care to male and female emergency patients.

Project description:Background:Many fellows in clinically driven subspecialties may have difficulty completing and publishing their scholarly projects due to lack of prior experience in research, selection of projects that are difficult to complete during fellowship, or mentorship challenges. This may be particularly true in pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) because research time may be longitudinally integrated with clinical rotations, rather than blocked as is common in other subspecialties. We describe the creation and outcomes of a structured program to increase academic productivity of PEM fellows. Methods:This was a retrospective cohort study of scholarly productivity (publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentation at national meetings) for PEM fellows over 17 years in one fellowship program, before and after the implementation of a structured program. We reviewed obstacles to publication for prior fellow projects when developing the curriculum. Our multifaceted program consisted of milestone development, four in-person committee meetings, and abstract and manuscript development workshops. We utilized existing faculty members, most of whom were junior faculty, as committee members. Our primary outcome was the percentage of fellows who were first authors for peer-reviewed publications for their fellowship projects. National conference presentations were the secondary outcome. Results:Data for 76 PEM fellows were eligible for analysis: 44 (58%) before and 32 after programmatic implementation. There was a statistically significant increase in the percentage of fellows who published their studies (32% vs. 63%; odds ratio [OR] = 3.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4 to 9.3) after programmatic implementation. There were no differences in conference presentations (45% vs. 63%; OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 0.8-5.1) after implementation. Conclusions:Utilizing a small group of existing, predominantly junior faculty members, we created a structured program that enhanced PEM fellows' scholarly productivity and increased publications. We believe that this model is sustainable for and generalizable to other PEM fellowship programs.

Dataset Information

Quantifying federal funding and scholarly output related to the academic emergency medicine consensus conferences.

Publications

Quantifying federal funding and scholarly output related to the academic emergency medicine consensus conferences.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets