Application Discrepancies in the 2023-2024 Integrated Plastic Surgery Match.

Abstract

Background: The Plastic Surgery Common Application (PSCA) was introduced in the 2020-2021 integrated plastic surgery match cycle. We investigated the accuracy of medical student-reported quantitative metrics in the PSCA.

Methods: Quantifiable data from 1 year of PSCA applications were compared between matched and unmatched students. Discrepancies were identified by reviewing publicly available data and from Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) applications.

Results: A total of 330 PSCAs were analyzed and divided into two groups: matched (n = 196) and unmatched (n = 134). Of the 71 medical schools with multiple applicants, 23.9% (17/71) and 31.0% (22/71) had contradicting reports of Alpha Omega Alpha and Gold Humanism Honor Society availability. Three matched applicants, with an average numeric Step 1 score of 228, reported scores as "pass." Four applicants did not disclose a prior failing Step 1 score. More matched students had research discrepancies than unmatched students for first author (56%, 111/196; 50%, 67/132; P = 0.24) and total publications (66.8%, 131/196; 53%, 71/134; P = 0.011). The mean discrepancy number between matched and unmatched students was similar for first author (3.0 vs 3.2, P = 0.61) and total publications (4.3 vs 4.5, P = 0.61). Reasons for discrepancies included counting accepted articles (20.2%), submitted articles (7.5%), non-peer reviewed (3.1%) articles, and other endeavors (6.2%) in publication counts, with 52% of applicants having multiple reasons for discrepancies.

Conclusions: Matched and unmatched applicants applying to plastic surgery had honor society and Step 1 score discrepancies, and inaccurate research reporting. NBME score verification and PubMed indexing may be a warranted addition to PSCA applications to guarantee application consistency.