ArticleUrology2022
Twitter and Instagram Use in the Urology Residency Application Process.
Article in Urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Social Media as a Source of Information on Interstitial Cystitis/Bladder Pain Syndrome: Support Tool or Misinformation?Neurourology and urodynamics · 2026Article
- Article
- Virtual Urology Residency Interviews in the Post-Pandemic Era.Current urology reports · 2024Review
- Article
- The Impact on Urology Residents' Learning of Social Media and Web Technologies after the Pandemic: A Step Forward through the Sharing of Knowledge.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- The Impact of COVID-19 on the Urology Residency Match and Geographic Proximity of Applicants.Urology · 2023Article
- Social Media and Apps in Urology.Current surgery reports · 2023Review
- Understanding Options for the Unmatched Urology Applicant.Current urology reports · 2023Review
- Virtual Radiology Fellowship Recruitment: Benefits, Limitations, and Future Directions.Academic radiology · 2023Article
- Article
- The utility of infographics and videographics in the modern era: maximising social media impact for research dissemination.World journal of urology · 2022Article
- Designing the "match of the future": challenges and proposed solutions in the interview and match phase of the UME-GME transition.Global surgical education : journal of the Association for Surgical Education · 2022Review
- The Urology Match: Social Media, Program Factors, and Their Effect on Application Trends.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
- Exploring the Impact of LearnENT's Social Media Team as a Powerful Tool in Otolaryngology Medical Education.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-facialeObservational
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo define urology applicant attitudes and usage trends of social media (SM) during the 2021 urology match cycle.
methodsWe emailed an anonymous, de-identified 22-question, multiple choice survey to all applicants to our institution for the 2021 Urology Residency Match. We asked participants about use of SM and which aspects they found useful in the application process. Univariate descriptive analyses were conducted based on survey responses. Chi-square analyses were performed to define significant differences in use of social media and resultant match outcomes.
resultsOf the 528 students who registered for the 2021 AUA Match, 398 received our survey (75%), and 144 responded (27% of applicants nationwide). Of survey participants, 49% made a new account on Twitter while 30% had a preexisting account. Most participants (71%) had a preexisting Instagram account, while only 3% made a new account. Most participants agreed Twitter was used as a source to gather information about programs (84%) and learn about events (89%). Participants found SM most helpful for announcing event dates (71%) and highlighting resident social life (59%). Applicants did not match more highly on their rank lists if they used Twitter (P = .427) or Instagram (P = .166) and were not more likely to get more interviews if they used Twitter (P = .246) or Instagram (P = .114)
conclusionApplicants found Twitter to be an important source of information through the virtual interview process. Despite the use of SM by most applicants, published content did not impact rank list decisions nor did SM engagement predict match outcomes.
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.