ArticleUrology2021
The Feasibility and Efficacy of a Multi-Institutional Urology Boot Camp for Incoming Urology Residents.
Article in Urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The State of Urotrauma Education Among Residency Programs in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Current urology reports · 2023Pooled it
- The Boot Camp Model in Urology: Preparing PGY1 Urology Interns for Practice.Current urology reports · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the feasibility and perceived usefulness of a pre-residency urology boot camp for first and second year urology residents.
methodsFirst and second year urology residents attended a multi-institutional boot camp in July 2019, which consisted of lectures, a hands-on practical, patient simulation session, and networking social event. Attendees completed a pre-course survey where they rated their comfort level in managing interpersonal, post-operative, and urology-specific scenarios on a Likert scale of 0-5. Participants completed follow-up surveys immediately and 6 months after the course regarding confidence in managing the same scenarios and the impact of boot camp on their training.
results6 urology PGY1s (55%) and 5 PGY2s (45%) from 4 institutions attended the boot camp. On the precourse survey, PGY2s had higher average comfort scores compared to PGY1s for all post-operative scenarios besides hypotension but just 2 urology-specific scenarios, difficult Foley troubleshooting (4 vs 3, P < .01) and obstructing urolithiasis with urosepsis (3.6 vs 2.2, P = .05). Immediately after the course, 10 of 11 (91%) residents reported feeling better prepared to handle all scenarios. All participants reported they would recommend this training to other urology residents. Six months later, the majority of respondents reported using knowledge learned in boot camp on a daily basis. All agreed that it was a useful networking experience, and 63% had since contacted other residents they met at the course.
conclusionA pre-residency boot camp is both feasible and valuable for first- and second-year urology residents for gaining practical medical knowledge and professional networking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33428979What 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.