ArticleCureus2025
Neurosurgery Program Directors' Perspectives on the Role of Research in Residency Matching: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesGiven growing concerns about an "arms race" among medical students to increase research output, it is essential to examine the role of research in the neurosurgery selection process by analyzing the diverse perspectives of program directors (PDs) nationwide.
methodsAll neurosurgery PDs were contacted to participate in structured interviews with purposive criterion-based sampling and thematic analysis. Those who agreed were asked eight open-ended questions regarding the role of medical student research in residency selection. Their responses were analyzed using qualitative research techniques. Results: A total of 31 (26.31%) PDs agreed to participate in interviews. Overall, research was viewed as a marker of interest and dedication to neurosurgery, with a focus on evaluating the quality of the journal the work was published, the authorship status of the student, and the ability to explain research. Most PDs interviewed value research experiences they determine to be of high quality over the pure quantity of research produced, but do not favor either basic science or clinical-based research. PDs also reported accounting for access to research support staff, infrastructure, and opportunity when assessing the research experience of applicants. Many PDs are concerned with the previously mentioned medical student research "arms race," voicing concern over a decrease in research quality as a potential long-term result. However, others believe that the increasing quantity of papers can be attributed to the competitive and demanding nature of neurosurgery.
conclusionWhile neurosurgery PDs value medical student research as a metric for interest and dedication to the field, opinions vary regarding the "arms race" of research as the number of publications per applicant continues to steadily increase, prompting discussions regarding potential solutions to preserve the quality of academic research moving forward.
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.