Academic productivity metrics correlate positively with industry funding amongst orthopedic shoulder and elbow surgeons

BACKGROUND: Research efforts can produce practice-changing results with widespread implications for patient care. While critical to the advancement of the field, such efforts do not often provide direct compensation. However, a researcher’s academic productivity may facilitate industry relationships, either as the impetus for the affiliation or a result of collaboration. METHODS: Queries of the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services publicly available Open Payments System allowed for extraction of industry compensation data for orthopedic surgeons in 7 categories, including royalties and licensing fees, consulting fees, gifts, honoria, and 3 unique speaking fees delineations. This system identifies physicians by taxonomy identifications; however, Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services does not have a unique code for shoulder and elbow surgeons. Therefore, identification of shoulder and elbow surgeons proceeded utilizing the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) society 2019 membership directory. Cross-referencing this membership list with extracted Open Payments data provided industry funding information for all ASES members. Physicians then underwent an academic productivity assessment. Queries of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar User Profile databases provided the Hirsch index (h-index) and m-index for each surgeon. Bivariate and multivariate analyses produced statistical results. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2020, 631,130, 158, and 72 ASES members earned mean annual industry compensation <$1000, between $1001 and $10,000, between $10,001 and $100,000, and >$100,000, respectively. Royalties (91.5%) predominated in the top earning group, compared with consulting fees (58.0%, 55.0%) in the 2 middle-tier groups. H-index and m-index correlated positively with total compensation (h-index: r = 0.18, P < .001; m-index: r = 0.10, P < .001). The highest income group (>$100,000) had higher h-index and m-index scores than either intermediate ($1001-$10,000, $10,001-$100,000) or lowest (<$1000) compensation groups (From lowest to highest income bracket—h-index: 14.8 vs. 16.4 vs. 19.4 vs. 32, P < .001; m-index: 0.79 vs. 0.85 vs. 0.91 vs. 1.18, P = .003). Multivariable analysis of factors associated with increased industry compensation identified only h-index (B = 8046, P < .001) as having a significant association with physician compensation, with each single unit increase in h-index associated with an 18% increase in industry funding. CONCLUSION: Among a group of academic shoulder and elbow surgeons, industry compensation correlates positively with academic productivity metrics, with an associated $8046/yr increase in industry funding for each single-unit increase in h-index over 9. Future studies may focus on more clearly defining the causal directionality of these results.