Predictive Factors of Research Productivity among Ophthalmology Residents: A Benchmark Analysis

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Positive and negative associations between prior publications and future research productivity is described in other fields, but no such analysis exists for ophthalmology. We conducted a study to determine characteristics of residents exhibiting research productivity during residency. Methods Using San Francisco Match and Program Web sites, a roster of ophthalmology residents in 2019 to 2020 was compiled, and publication data was collected via PubMed and Google Scholar on a random sample of 100 third-year residents. Results The median number of publications generated by ophthalmology residents before residency is 2 (range 0–13). Thirty-seven, 23, and 40 residents had zero, one, and two or more papers published during residency, respectively, with a median of 1 (range 0–14). On univariate analysis, compared with residents who published zero or one paper, those who published ≥ 2 were more likely to have more preresidency publications (odds ratio [OR] 1.30; p = 0.005), attend a top-25 ranked residency program by multiple metrics including Doximity reputation (OR 4.92; p < 0.001), and have attended a top-25 ranked medical school program by U.S. News and World Report (OR 3.24; p = 0.03). However, on adjusted analyses, the only factor that remained significant for predicting publications in residency was whether the residency program attended was top 25 ranked (OR 3.54; p = 0.009). Discussion/Conclusion With the advent of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 pass/fail system, greater emphasis will be placed on other metrics, including research. This is the first benchmark analysis examining factors predictive of publication productivity in ophthalmology residents. Our study suggests that the residency program attended, not the medical school attended or prior publication history, plays an influential role in the number of publications produced during residency, highlighting the importance of factors to support research on the institutional level, such as mentorship and funding, rather than historical factors in research productivity by the resident.