ReviewNeurosurgery practice2026
Preresidency Fellowships in Neurosurgery: A Multi-Institutional, Cross-Sectional Survey of Utility and Outcomes.
Review in Neurosurgery practice, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesNeurosurgery remains one of the most competitive residency specialties in the United States. For applicants, particularly international medical graduates (IMGs), preresidency fellowships (PRFs) have emerged to strengthen applications through research, clinical exposure, and mentorship. However, data on the effectiveness of PRFs in improving residency match outcomes remain limited. This study aims to assess the utility of neurosurgery PRFs in enhancing applicant preparedness, clinical competency, and match success.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was distributed to current and former neurosurgery PRF participants in the United States between October 2024 and March 2025. Data collected included demographics, match outcomes, and perceptions of PRF utility. Likert scales and composite rankings were used to evaluate experiences and factors contributing to successful or unsuccessful match outcomes.
resultsOf 58 publicly identifiable fellows, 33 responded (57% response rate), most of whom (61%) were non-US IMGs. Among those who participated in the match (n = 30), 57% successfully matched into neurosurgery. PRFs were rated as extremely or very useful by 68% of respondents, with the most valued factors for success being PRF experience, letters of recommendation, and research productivity. Respondents who did not match cited low board scores and lack of neurosurgery mentorship as primary barriers. Most participants (88%) reported that they would recommend PRFs to future applicants.
conclusionPRFs serve as valuable preparatory programs that improve match outcomes, especially for IMGs. They enhance clinical exposure, academic productivity, and access to mentorship. Further standardization and expansion of PRFs could increase accessibility and support equity in neurosurgical training pathways.
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.