Advertisement

The Fate of the Unmatched Urology Applicant

Published:November 02, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.09.030

      Abstract

      Objective

      To determine the outcomes and eventual career paths for unmatched applicants by evaluating a historical cohort of unmatched applicants in the Urology Match.

      Methods

      The 2008-2014 AUA Match lists were obtained from the Society of Academic Urologists and 730 unique applicants were identified with at least one unmatched result. Additional information such as preliminary training and eventual specialty choice were obtained from publicly available sources. Comparative analysis with univariable and multivariable analysis was performed between eventual urologists and those who chose alternative career paths.

      Results

      Overall, 43.5% (318/730) of unmatched urology applicants subsequently continued their interest in Urology and 77.4% (246/317) of initially unsuccessful applicants eventually became urologists. Males (80.9%, P = .01), Doctor of Osteopathy (DO) degree (62.5%, P = <.001), and those undergoing a research year compared to a preliminary surgery year (85.2% vs 72.0% respectively, P = .047) had an increased likelihood of successfully becoming a urologist. The most common alternative specialty choices were Internal Medicine (13.8%), General Surgery (12.9%) and Anesthesiology (11.9%).

      Conclusion

      Urology is a competitive surgical sub-specialty. Surprisingly, approximately 3 in 4 unmatched urology applicants who continue their interest in urology will eventually obtain a residency position. However, only 33.7% of initially unmatched students ultimately became urologists. Unmatched applicants have several viable pathways to obtain a urological residency position. Male gender, a DO degree, and a research year are associated with successfully obtaining a urology residency position.
      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

        • Kheir MM
        • Tan TL
        • Rondon AJ
        • Chen AF.
        The fate of unmatched orthopaedic applicants: risk factors and outcomes.
        JB JS Open Access. 2020; 5 (Epub 20200624PubMed PMID: 32832827; PMCID: PMC7418921)https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.20.00043
      1. Urology residency match statistics. 2022. [cited 2022 February 2]. Available from: https://www.auanet.org/education/auauniversity/for-residents/urology-and-specialty-matches/urology-match-results.

        • Rivero S
        • Ippolito J
        • Martinez M
        • Beebe K
        • Benevenia J
        • Berberian W.
        Analysis of unmatched orthopaedic residency applicants: options after the match.
        J Grad Med Educ. 2016; 8 (PubMed PMID: 26913110; PMCID: PMC4763390): 91-95https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-15-00176.1
        • Fuller C
        • Byrd JK
        • Groves M.
        Outcomes of reapplication to otolaryngology residency: a prospective cohort study.
        Ear Nose Throat J. 2018; 97 (PubMed PMID: 30273432): 324-328https://doi.org/10.1177/014556131809700922
        • Davis TA
        • Yang SC.
        Unmatched integrated cardiothoracic surgery program applicants: Where do they end up?.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2018; 106 (Epub 20180422PubMed PMID: 29689239): 1556-1560https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.03.046
        • Halpern JA
        • Dinerman B
        • Cosiano MF
        • RK Lee
        • Singer JS
        • Hu JC.
        National trends and characteristics of success in the urology match process.
        Urol Pract. 2018; 5https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urpr.2017.04.005
        • Aisen CM
        • Sui W
        • Pak JS
        • Pagano M
        • Cooper KL
        • Badalato GM.
        Gender differences in the urology residency match—does it make a difference?.
        Urology. 2018; 111: 39-43https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UROLOGY.2017.07.061
        • O'Connor RC
        • Engelsgjerd S
        • Koraym A
        • Wong M
        • Sandlow JI.
        Familiarity trends of successful urology residency match applicants.
        Urol Pract. 2021; 8: 298-302https://doi.org/10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000192
        • Harris PA
        • Taylor R
        • Minor BL
        • et al.
        The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners.
        J Biomed Inform. 2019; 95 (Epub 20190509PubMed PMID: 31078660; PMCID: PMC7254481)103208https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
        • Harris PA
        • Taylor R
        • Thielke R
        • Payne J
        • Gonzalez N
        • Conde JG.
        Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.
        J Biomed Inform. 2009; 42 (Epub 20080930PubMed PMID: 18929686; PMCID: PMC2700030): 377-381https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
      2. Bhatnagar V, Diaz S, Bucur PA. The need for more mentorship in medical school2020. doi: 10.7759/cureus.7984.

        • Gabrielson AT
        • Kohn TP
        • Clifton MM.
        COVID-19 and the urology match: perspectives and a call to action.
        J Urol. 2020; 204 (Epub 20200331PubMed PMID: 32228332; PMCID: PMC7273862): 17-19https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000001037
        • Weissbart S
        • Stock J
        • Wein A.
        Program directors' criteria for selection into urology residency.
        Urology. 2015; 85https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.12.041
        • Hunt TC
        • Gusev A
        • BB O'Neil
        Research Years for Urology Applicants: Considerations Amid COVID 19.
        American Urological Association, 2021 (AUANews, American Urological Association Linthicum Maryland)
        • Langston J
        • Kirby E
        • Nielsen M
        • et al.
        Economic impact of training and career decisions in urologic surgery.
        J Urol. 2013; : 191https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.09.060
        • Wong D
        • Kuprasertkul A
        • Khouri Jr., RK
        • Ganesan V
        • Kenigsberg AP
        • Lemack GE
        Assessing the female and underrepresented minority medical student experience in the urology match: Where do we fall short?.
        Urology. 2021; 147 (Epub 20201013PubMed PMID: 33065172): 57-63https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.08.076
        • Zheng MY
        • Overland M
        • Escobar D
        • et al.
        Formal mentorship as an opportunity to expand the urology pipeline: under represented trainees entering residency (UReTER) program evaluation 2020-2021.
        Urology. 2021; (Epub 20210908PubMed PMID: 34506807)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.06.052
        • Wallace NO
        • Pittman AB
        • Wilson SN.
        The R Frank Jones Urology Interest Group: an intentional and strategic pipeline program to increase diversity in urology.
        Urology. 2021; (Epub 20211016PubMed PMID: 34666122)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.08.047
        • Cannon S
        • Seideman CA
        • Thavaseelan S
        • et al.
        Urologists for equity: a collective approach toward diversity, equity, and inclusion in urology.
        Urology. 2021; (Epub 20210729PubMed PMID: 34333037)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.07.017