ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2026
Findings from the inaugural national Canadian Resident Census.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite the importance of residents and fellows to the national urologic workforce, comprehensive data describing Canadian urology trainees has been limited. This study reports findings from the inaugural Canadian Urological Association (CUA) Resident Census.
methodsA national, cross-sectional, anonymous, electronic survey of Canadian urology residents and fellows was conducted between May and August 2025. Survey development was led by the CUA Resident and Fellow Committee and the Postgraduate Training Committee. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize demographics, recruitment, training experiences, workload, career planning, and future priorities.
resultsOf 271 eligible trainees, 143 responded (53%), including 116 residents (81%) and 27 fellows (19%); 33.7% of respondents were female and 2% were queer/non-binary. Urology trainees reported high satisfaction with the residency match process. Almost all residents (89%) indicated their intention to pursue fellowship training, most commonly in oncology and endourology. Insufficient exposure was greatest among andrology, urogynecology/reconstructive pelvic surgery, and gender-affirming care subspecialties. Trainees reported working an average of 75 clinical hours per week, with over half exceeding 80 hours. Over one-third (36%) reported experiencing mistreatment during training, most frequently from clinical supervisors.
conclusionsThis first national CUA Resident Census identified changing trends in demographics, while also highlighting potential issues such as high workload and variable subspecialty exposure. Limitations included a moderate response rate, regional overrepresentation of larger provinces, and reliance on self-reported data. These findings establish a baseline to inform advocacy, educational planning, and future longitudinal assessment.
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.