Advertisement

Characteristics of Medical Schools in the United States Associated With Successful Match into Urology Residency Programs: Analysis of the 2016-2021 Urology Resident Cohort

Published:October 13, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.08.047

      Objective

      To determine the characteristics of US medical schools associated with successful urology match applicants.

      Materials and Methods

      Using publicly available data, demographics and bibliometrics were collected for 1814 current urology residents who attend a US-based Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Accredited program, reflecting matched applicants over a 6-year period from 2016-2021. A generated list of US feeder medical schools for urology was analyzed for correlative and predictive factors. Statistical analyses to characterize these factors included Pearson's Correlation Coefficient (PCC) and univariable and multivariable linear regression, respectively, as needed.

      Results

      There were 516 (28.45%) female residents and 58 (3.20%) international medical graduates. The mean number of published papers and abstracts ± SD pre-residency was 5.54 ± 7.20 with a mean h-index of 1.97 ± 2.24. The Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine had the highest percentage of successful matches into urology (n = 7, 3.65%), while the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center College of Medicine produced the highest absolute number (n = 41, 3.30%). The presence of a home urology program and pre-residency h-index had the strongest correlation with producing urology residents (PCC = 0.5769 and 0.3709, respectively, P<.0001).

      Conclusion

      Understanding the characteristics of a successful urology match applicant and the medical schools that produce them will be vital as USMLE Step 1 exam becomes pass/fail. Further research into these schools’ curricula is required to better understand the effect of early exposure to urology on matching into urology.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Weissbart SJ
        • Stock JA
        • Wein AJ.
        Program Directors' criteria for selection into urology residency.
        Urology. 2015; 85: 731-736https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.12.041
        • Andriole DA
        • Schechtman KB
        • Ryan K
        • Whelan A
        • Diemer K
        How competitive is my surgical specialty?.
        Am J Surg. 2002; 184: 1-5https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(02)00890-5
      1. AUA. Urology Residency Match Statistics. 2022

        • Huang MM
        • Clifton MM.
        Evaluating urology residency applications: What matters most and what comes next?.
        Curr Urol Rep. 2020; 21: 37https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-020-00993-0
        • Lebastchi AH
        • Khouri RK
        • McLaren ID
        • Faerber GJ
        • Kraft KH
        • Hafez KS
        • Dauw CA
        • Bird VG
        • Stringer TF
        • Singla AK
        • Sorensen MD
        • Wessells H
        • Ambani SN
        The urology applicant: an analysis of contemporary urology residency candidates.
        Urology. 2018; 115: 51-58https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.10.065
        • Slaughenhoupt B
        • Ogunyemi O
        • Giannopoulos M
        • Sauder C
        • Leverson G
        An update on the current status of medical student urology education in the United States.
        Urology. 2014; 84: 743-747https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.06.003
        • Kerfoot BP
        • Masser BA
        • Dewolf WC.
        The continued decline of formal urological education of medical students in the United States: does it matter?.
        J Urol. 2006; 175: 2243-2247https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(06)00314-4
        • Antar A
        • Feghali J
        • Wicks EE
        • Sattari SA
        • Li S
        • Witham TF
        • Brem H
        • Huang J
        Which medical schools produce the most neurosurgery residents? An analysis of the 2014-2020 cohort.
        J Neurosurg. 2021; 2021: 1-13https://doi.org/10.3171/2021.7.Jns211530
      2. Gender identification by name using NLTK. 2022. Available: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/python-gender-identification-by-name-using-nltk/

      3. AUA. Urology residency match statistics. 2020, 2021, 2022.

        • Kutikov A
        • Bonslaver J
        • Casey JT
        • Degrado J
        • Dusseault BN
        • Fox JA
        • Lashley-Rogers D
        • Richardson I
        • Smaldone MC
        • Steinberg PL
        • Trivedi DB
        • Routh JC
        The gatekeeper disparity-why do some medical schools send more medical students into urology?.
        J Urol. 2011; 185: 647-652https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.09.113
        • Wong D
        • Ganesan V
        • Kuprasertkul I
        • Khouri RK
        • Lemack GE
        Reversing the decline in urology residency applications: an analysis of medical school factors critical to maintaining student interest.
        Urology. 2020; 136: 51-57https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.10.028
        • Loughlin KR.
        The current status of medical student urological education in the United States.
        J Urol. 2008; 179: 1087-109090https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.10.068
        • Warren CJ
        • Wisener J
        • Chang C
        • Abdelmalek G
        • Gad B
        • Nadkarni S
        • Dhruva V
        • Ward B
        • Patel N
        • Sadeghi-Nejad H
        • Weis R
        PubMed-indexed research productivity of students matching at top urology programs: 2017-2020.
        Urology. 2020;; 144: 52-58https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.06.049
        • Hinojosa-Gonzalez DE
        • Zlatev DV
        • Wintner A
        • Mayer WA
        • Korets R
        • Eisner BH
        PD30-06trends in PubMed-indexed research in matched urology applicants: yearly analysis of the 2017-2021 match cycles.
        J Urol. 2022; 207: e512https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002578.06