ArticleUrology2025
Applicant Preferences and Perspectives in the New Era of the Urology Residency Match.
Article in Urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess urology residency applicants' preferences and perspectives regarding key issues in a new urology match era that includes both in-person and virtual interviews.
methodsApplicants to our residency program from the 2024 to 2025 American Urological Association match cycle were surveyed. Issues assessed included interview format preferences, costs, ability to judge "fit" with programs, and decisions made throughout the application cycle. When applicable, items were grouped by time point as pre-interview, day of interview, or post-interview.
resultsThe response rate was 45% (75/166). Applicants attended 13 interviews on average, 7 in person and 6 virtual. Only 10% of invitations included a hybrid option, and just 9% offered any financial aid. Applicants strongly preferred in-person interviews (49.3%) or hybrid formats (40.0%) compared to virtual (10.7%). For judging fit, an even larger majority preferred in-person (76.0%) over virtual (4.0%), especially on the interview day itself. Applicants spent $4994 total (applications: $1913, interviews: $3081), averaging $410 per in-person interview. Nearly all applicants felt the costs and travel time of in-person interviewing were worth it (91% and 95%, respectively). However, 19% of applicants had to decline one or more in-person interviews due to costs.
conclusionUrology applicants now largely favor in-person interviews over virtual, especially when judging "fit," and believe they are worth the increased costs and logistical challenges. However, financial constraints limited access to interview opportunities for a substantial cohort. Future innovations in the urology match may explore broader implementation of hybrid interview formats as issues of applicant preferences and equity are balanced.
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.