IMPACT OF PLANNED RESEARCH GAP YEAR ON UROLOGY RESIDENCY MATCH SUCCESS.

IF 2.1 3区医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Urology Pub Date : 2025-01-21 DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2025.01.030

Minhaj Jabeer, Amandip Cheema, Athena Barrett, Adithya Chandrasekaran, Meredith Meyer, Christine Van Horn, John P Richgels, Ahmad M El-Arabi, Jeffrey L Ellis, Kristin G Baldea

{"title":"IMPACT OF PLANNED RESEARCH GAP YEAR ON UROLOGY RESIDENCY MATCH SUCCESS.","authors":"Minhaj Jabeer, Amandip Cheema, Athena Barrett, Adithya Chandrasekaran, Meredith Meyer, Christine Van Horn, John P Richgels, Ahmad M El-Arabi, Jeffrey L Ellis, Kristin G Baldea","doi":"10.1016/j.urology.2025.01.030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To assess the impact of a planned research gap year (RGY) on match outcomes and research productivity among urology residency applicants in the context of the highly competitive urology specialty and the new pass/fail format for the USMLE Step 1 exam.Methods: We conducted an IRB-approved analysis of applicants to our program during the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 application cycles. Data on demographics, medical school rank, having a home urology program, USMLE Step 1 scores, and ERAS research entries were collected. Match outcomes were verified via the Society of Academic Urologists listing. Statistical analyses were performed to compare characteristics and outcomes between the two cohorts.Results: Out of 560 total applicants, 61 (10.9%) pursued a RGY. RGY applicants were older (28.2 vs. 26.9 years, p<0.001), attended higher-ranked medical schools (medical school rank 28 vs. 56, p=0.028), with lower USMLE Step 1 scores (237 vs. 244, p=0.004). RGY applicants demonstrated higher research productivity, with a median of 26 ERAS research entries compared to 12 in non-RGY applicants (p<0.001). Match rates were comparable (88.5% vs. 85.3%, p=0.496). RGY utilization was similar between allopathic and osteopathic applicants.Conclusions: A planned RGY produced more research but did not culminate in higher match rates. The opportunity to take an RGY was equally accessible to both MD and DO applicants. While an RGY may enhance research output, we did not observe an increased match rate among those who utilized it.","PeriodicalId":23415,"journal":{"name":"Urology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2025.01.030","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To assess the impact of a planned research gap year (RGY) on match outcomes and research productivity among urology residency applicants in the context of the highly competitive urology specialty and the new pass/fail format for the USMLE Step 1 exam.

Methods: We conducted an IRB-approved analysis of applicants to our program during the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 application cycles. Data on demographics, medical school rank, having a home urology program, USMLE Step 1 scores, and ERAS research entries were collected. Match outcomes were verified via the Society of Academic Urologists listing. Statistical analyses were performed to compare characteristics and outcomes between the two cohorts.

Results: Out of 560 total applicants, 61 (10.9%) pursued a RGY. RGY applicants were older (28.2 vs. 26.9 years, p<0.001), attended higher-ranked medical schools (medical school rank 28 vs. 56, p=0.028), with lower USMLE Step 1 scores (237 vs. 244, p=0.004). RGY applicants demonstrated higher research productivity, with a median of 26 ERAS research entries compared to 12 in non-RGY applicants (p<0.001). Match rates were comparable (88.5% vs. 85.3%, p=0.496). RGY utilization was similar between allopathic and osteopathic applicants.

Conclusions: A planned RGY produced more research but did not culminate in higher match rates. The opportunity to take an RGY was equally accessible to both MD and DO applicants. While an RGY may enhance research output, we did not observe an increased match rate among those who utilized it.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Urology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学

CiteScore

3.30

自引率

9.50%

发文量

716

审稿时长

59 days

期刊介绍： Urology is a monthly, peer–reviewed journal primarily for urologists, residents, interns, nephrologists, and other specialists interested in urology The mission of Urology®, the "Gold Journal," is to provide practical, timely, and relevant clinical and basic science information to physicians and researchers practicing the art of urology worldwide. Urology® publishes original articles relating to adult and pediatric clinical urology as well as to clinical and basic science research. Topics in Urology® include pediatrics, surgical oncology, radiology, pathology, erectile dysfunction, infertility, incontinence, transplantation, endourology, andrology, female urology, reconstructive surgery, and medical oncology, as well as relevant basic science issues. Special features include rapid communication of important timely issues, surgeon''s workshops, interesting case reports, surgical techniques, clinical and basic science review articles, guest editorials, letters to the editor, book reviews, and historical articles in urology.