ReviewCurrent urology reports2020
Evaluating Urology Residency Applications: What Matters Most and What Comes Next?
Review in Current urology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of preference signaling on interview and match rate for surgical match in resident education: a meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Enabling Exploration: Examining the Availability and Adequacy of Conference Funding for Medical Students.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Implementation of a shared research database to increase medical student awareness and involvement in urology research A pilot study.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2024Article
- Assessing the competitiveness of medical humanities research on psychiatry, otolaryngology, and ophthalmology residency program applications.Medical education online · 2023Article
- The Impact of COVID-19 on the Urology Residency Match and Geographic Proximity of Applicants.Urology · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Navigating the Ophthalmology & Urology Match with a Significant Other.Journal of surgical education · 2023Article
- Evaluating the Whole Applicant: Use of Situational Judgment Testing and Personality Testing to Address Disparities in Resident Selection.Current urology reports · 2022Review
- How Science Educators Still Matter: Leveraging the Basic Sciences for Student Success.Medical science educator · 2022Article
- COVID-19 Increased Residency Applications and How Virtual Interviews Impacted Applicants.Cureus · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewIn light of the announcement that the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 exam will transition to pass/fail reporting, we reviewed recent literature on evaluating residency applicants with a focus on identifying objective measurements of applicant potential. RECENT
findingsReferences from attending urologists, Step 1 scores, overall academic performance, and research publications are among the most important criteria used to assess applicants. There has been a substantial increase in the average number of applications submitted per applicant, with both applicants and residency directors indicating support for a cap on the number of applications that may be submitted. Additionally, there are increasing efforts to promote diversity with the goal of improving care and representation in urology. Despite progress in standardizing interview protocols, inappropriate questioning remains an issue. Opportunities to improve residency application include promoting diversity, enforcing prohibitions of illegal practices, limiting application numbers, and finding more transparent and equitable screening measures to replace Step 1.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.