Bibliometric analyses are essential for assessing research productivity and impact in academic medicine, particularly in neurosurgery. Traditional indices, such as the h-index, provide valuable insights into scholarly output but may disproportionately reflect past productivity. The five-year h-index (ih(5)-index) addresses this limitation by focusing on recent academic contributions. This study aims to update bibliometric assessments of U.S. neurosurgical residency programs, ranking institutions based on recent research performance and examining factors influencing publication equality. All Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited U.S. neurosurgical residency programs were included. Faculty rosters were compiled from departmental websites, and publication and citation data from 2019 to 2024 were retrieved using Scopus. Bibliometric indices, including the ih(5)-index, ig(5)-index, ie(5)-index, and i10(5)-index, were calculated. Programs were ranked based on these metrics, and regional variations were analyzed. Additionally, publication equality was assessed using Lorenz curves and Gini coefficients, with statistical analyses identifying predictors of balanced scholarly contributions. The Western region demonstrated the highest median ih(5)-index (32.5), followed by the Northeast and Midwest (both 27), and the South (25). The top five neurosurgical programs in recent research productivity were the University of California San Francisco, Stanford Health Care, Duke University Hospital, Johns Hopkins University, and McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University. The ih(5)-index correlated positively with total research output and negatively with publication inequality, emerging as an independent predictor of a balanced distribution of scholarly contributions. This study provides an updated evaluation of neurosurgical research productivity, offering valuable insights for prospective residents, academic institutions, and funding bodies. The ih(5)-index serves as a key metric for assessing recent research performance and equitable scholarly contributions, ensuring that bibliometric evaluations remain relevant and informative.
Bassett et al. (Fri,) studied this question.