ArticleCureus2025
PubMed-Indexed Productivity of Matched Orthopedic Surgery Applicants Before and After Step 1 Scoring Transition.
Article in Cureus, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWhile research productivity surrounding the Step 1 scoring transition has been assessed, the specific impact on verified PubMed-indexed publications (PMIDs) has not been assessed. No study has quantified what proportion of self-reported research items reported in National Resident Match Program (NRMP) data is actually PubMed-indexed. Addressing these gaps is essential to understanding how research output is evolving and represented in residency applications.
objectivesThe objective of this study is to evaluate how the Step 1 pass/fail transition affected pre-residency research output among matched orthopedic surgery residents and whether medical school National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding independently predicts research productivity.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 1,441 matched orthopedic surgery residents across two cycles: pre-transition (class of 2026) and post-transition (class of 2029). PubMed was used to identify total, first-author, in-specialty publications, and citation rates. Residents were categorized by medical school NIH funding and program tier. Mann-Whitney U tests compared groups, and negative binomial regression identified independent predictors.
resultsResearch productivity increased significantly following the Step 1 transition. Post-transition residents published nearly twice as many PubMed-indexed articles as their pre-transition peers (IRR = 2.13, p < 0.001), with similar gains in first-author and in-specialty work. NIH funding and program tier were independent predictors across all metrics. Citation rates did not differ. Only 12-15% of reported abstracts, presentations, and publications (APPs) were PMIDs.
conclusionThis study provides the first validated analysis of PubMed-indexed research output before and after the Step 1 transition. These findings can inform future studies across specialties as research output becomes increasingly central to residency selection.
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.