Strategies for Resolving Conflict Among Residents in Urology.

Daniel A Sidhom, Ashorne K Mahenthiran, Chandru P Sundaram

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Daniel A SidhomDepartment of Urology, Indiana University, 150 Barnhill Dr, RT 150, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA.

Ashorne K MahenthiranDepartment of Urology, Indiana University, 150 Barnhill Dr, RT 150, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3409-2460

Chandru P SundaramDepartment of Urology, Indiana University, 150 Barnhill Dr, RT 150, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. sundaram@iu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2885-1678

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewConflict is inevitable in any setting where individuals must work towards a common goal. In the context of a surgical residency, there exists several etiologies through which conflict can emerge and be exacerbated. It is important to understand how best to resolve these issues as collaboration is essential among residents, faculty, and hospital staff to achieve the best patient outcomes and resident training. RECENT

findingsThere exists many strategies for conflict resolution such as the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Model, Levine 7-Step Model, or AIDET communication framework. Many of these emphasize the importance of understanding the role of perspective for those involved in conflict. Our review provides background to these tools and their applications in resolving conflicts. In this review, we highlight sources of resident conflict, and models of resolution that can be employed. Furthermore, we provide applications of how conflict resolution strategies can directly address common problems encountered within surgical residencies.

Indexed as

Conflict, PsychologicalInternship and ResidencyInterprofessional RelationsNegotiatingUrologyHumansConflict resolutionEducationProfessionalismResidencyUrology training

Identifiers

PMID40343645

DOI10.1007/s11934-025-01267-3

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.