Reporting of Research by Matched Otolaryngology Residency Applicants

Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives:</jats:title><jats:p> Matching to an otolaryngology residency program is a competitive process for medical students, and research performed by students is considered as a factor for granting interviews by program directors. Because abstracts, presentations and publications are all reported in combination by the National Resident Matching Program’s “Charting Outcomes in the Match” (ChOM) and may be weighted differently by PDs, we specifically investigated the number of publications by past applicants accepted to top otolaryngology residency programs. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods:</jats:title><jats:p> The top 25 otolaryngology residency programs were identified using Doximity, sorting by reputation. Current residents were determined from the programs’ websites. Using PubMed, each resident’s number of publications, authorship status, and journal type were recorded. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results:</jats:title><jats:p> A total of 24 programs were included in the final analysis and the average number of manuscripts was 2.76 ± 4.01. The mean number of publications in otolaryngology journals was 1.03 ± 1.91. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions:</jats:title><jats:p> The difference between the investigated average number of publications (2.76) and those published by ChOM (10.4) represent a discrepancy due to the lack of delineation between abstracts, presentations and publications. The reported numbers for research may lead medical students to pursue alternate measures to increase their own research. Some options, such as adding a research year are not universally accessible. A clearer and more detailed approach to reporting research statistics would be beneficial to both applicants and PDs for otolaryngology programs. </jats:p></jats:sec>

Analyzing the Role of Research in the Radiation Oncology Match

“…Other groups have utilized bibliometric analyses to study the importance of research in matching to other competitive and similarly research-heavy specialties, such as neurological surgery, otolaryngology, and plastic surgery. 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 Prior studies have differed slightly in methodology and findings, with 1 reporting only h -index to correlate significantly with matriculating to higher-tier residencies, 8 while another found both h -index and total number of publications to be significant. 9 In general, these studies also found that increased research productivity during medical school correlated with matching at higher-tier residency programs.…”

“… 9 In general, these studies also found that increased research productivity during medical school correlated with matching at higher-tier residency programs. 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 The protocols used for data identification, collection, and statistical analysis in these studies were modified and refined to implement the best approach to assess research productivity in radiation oncology residents. For example, 2 studies of residents in neurological surgery and otolaryngology used univariate and multivariate statistical analysis, but data were collected only from Scopus, and the respective residency programs were ranked based only on research output.…”

“… 11 In another study of otolaryngology residencies, multiple resources were used to collect data and verify residents’ identities, but only the top 25 residencies were sorted by Doximity reputation, and no statistical analyses were reported. 10 We considered and applied all of these aspects in our own methods to ensure the rigor, reliability, validity, and utility of our results, a notable strength of this study.…”

“…16 Bibliometric measures were analyzed for potential association with matching to higher-tier residencies based on reputation and research output, as has been done by other groups. 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 Institutional review board approval was not required for this retrospective database review.…”

“…Previous studies of other residency programs in neurological surgery, otolaryngology, and plastic surgery have used bibliometric analyses to clarify applicants’ research productivity. 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 Although some bibliometric analyses have been used in radiation oncology, those analyses focused on either departmental research productivity 12 or residents’ research productivity during and after their residency. 13 Here, we sought to specifically assess the importance of peer-reviewed research published before the residency application process in matching to radiation oncology residencies in the United States.…”