ArticleCureus2026
Research Productivity Among Applicants Matching to Top Pediatrics Residency Programs in the Post-pass/Fail Step One Era.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The transition to pass/fail scoring for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step one has shifted residency selection toward alternative metrics, including research productivity. While scholarship expectations are well-characterized in competitive surgical specialties, less is known about research output among pediatrics applicants. Objective To characterize research productivity of applicants successfully matching into the Doximity-ranked top 10 pediatric residency programs and examine differences by institutional National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding rank and gender. Methods All 450 students matching into the Doximity-ranked top 10 pediatric programs in 2024 were identified using Doximity rankings and program rosters. Publications through September 27, 2024, were catalogued using Google Scholar and classified by type, authorship position, pediatrics relevance, and journal h-5 index. Applicants were stratified by medical school NIH funding rank (Top 40 vs 41-150) and gender. Welch's t-tests and Chi-square analyses compared publication metrics between groups. Results Mean publications were 2.3 ± 4.7 (median=1.0); 180/450 (40.0%) of matched applicants had zero publications. Clinical research was most common (449/1029, 43.6%), followed by basic science (269/1029, 26.1%). Students from NIH Top-40 institutions were more likely to have publications (113/159, 71.1% vs 157/291, 54.0%, p<0.001), though publication quantity and authorship metrics did not differ by institutional rank or gender among those with research experience. Research output increased progressively through medical school, particularly for pediatrics-related and first-author publications. Conclusions Successful applicants to elite pediatrics programs demonstrate heterogeneous research backgrounds, with substantial proportions matching without publications. While institutional funding influences research access, productivity metrics remain comparable across institutions and genders once students engage in scholarship, supporting holistic residency evaluation practices.
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.