Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36853445›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2023

Understanding Options for the Unmatched Urology Applicant.

Shreya R Lamba, Casey A Seideman, Nishant D Patel, Ryan W Dobbs

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Shreya R LambaSaint Louis University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Casey A SeidemanDepartment of Urology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Nishant D PatelDepartment of Urology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Ryan W DobbsDivision of Urology, Cook County Health and Hospitals System, 1950 W Polk St, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. ryanwdobbs@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1397-7307

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTo evaluate recent literature regarding the pathways and options for unmatched urology applicants. RECENT

findingsUrology remains a competitive surgical sub-specialty with a match process independent of the National Resident Matching Program. Each year a cohort of competitive applicants go unmatched and are faced with the decision to reapply the following cycle while doing a research fellowship or a preliminary internship in the interim or choose a different specialty altogether. In this review, we sought to evaluate the current match process and literature regarding outcomes and options for unmatched applicants as well as to provide future directions for research and improvements to support unmatched urology applicants. Presently, data regarding outcomes for unmatched applicants is relatively limited. Going forward it is imperative for national urology organizations to create centralized resources for applicants to provide the best possible information for applicants and mentors alike.

Indexed as

Internship and ResidencyUrologyHumansEmploymentGraduate medical educationInternship and residencyJob applicationMedical educationUrology

Identifiers

PMID36853445

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.