Impact of fellowship training on research productivity in academic neurological surgery.

Background: An increasing number of neurological surgeons have sought fellowship training in recent years, and previous analyses have suggested these practitioners are more likely to pursue an academic career. Scholarly productivity is a key component in academic advancement.

Objective: We used the h-index to evaluate whether fellowship training impacts research productivity and whether any differences exist in scholarly output among practitioners in the various neurosurgical subspecialties.

Methods: Online listings from academic neurological surgery departments were used to organize faculty by academic rank and fellowship training. Using the Scopus database, we calculated the h-index for 869 full-time clinical faculty.

Results: Mean h-index did not differ between fellowship- and nonfellowship-trained practitioners (h = 12.6 vs. 13.0, P = 0.96). When organized by academic rank, the difference between h-indices of those who completed fellowships was substantially greater at all ranks, with statistical significance at the associate professor rank (P = 0.003). Upon further examination by individual subspecialties, significant differences in relative research impact were noted (P < 0.0001). The stereotactic and functional fellowship was found to have the greatest mean h-index score, whereas the trauma/critical care fellowship had the lowest.

Conclusions: No significant difference existed between the mean h-index scores of neurological surgeons who completed fellowships and those who did not. However, when stratified by academic rank, a trend was observed showing greater mean h-index scores for those who completed fellowships. This trend persists across nearly all subspecialties. Overall, being a senior faculty member corresponds with a greater h-index score, regardless of whether a fellowship was completed.