Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34913100›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2021

A SWOT Analysis of Urology Residency.

Luke E Sebel, Eric G Katz, Lara S MacLachlan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Luke E SebelDivision of Urology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Urology, Burlington, MA, USA.
Eric G KatzDivision of Urology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Urology, Burlington, MA, USA.
Lara S MacLachlanDivision of Urology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Urology, Burlington, MA, USA. lara.maclachlan@lahey.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5858-215X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewResidency training is a pivotal educational step on the road to becoming a urologist. It combines both clinical and surgical instruction with the goal of producing proficient and compassionate surgeons and clinicians. In this review, we employ a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) to investigate the current state of urologic residency training. RECENT

findingsUrology remains an attractive and competitive residency with varied and complex surgical and medical training. Areas for improvement include standardization of evaluation and feedback, improving resident wellness, and expanding the use of surgical simulation. Workforce issues such as the predicted urologist supply deficit and poor readiness to enter the business of medicine can be addressed at the residency level. Failure to attract and retain underrepresented minorities, increasing burden of student debt, and resident burnout are serious threats to our field. Using a SWOT analysis we identify key areas for expansion, underscore valuable strengths, and provide a working roadmap for improvement of these formative years.

Indexed as

Burnout, ProfessionalInternship and ResidencyUrologyHumansUrologistsResidencyReviewSWOTUrology

Identifiers

PMID34913100
PMCPMC8674026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.