Bibliometric Review of Medical Student Research Before Matching Integrated Vascular Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Research output is one element of a multifactorial process that residency programs consider when evaluating applicants. However, there are minimal data assessing research productivity on admittance into research-oriented integrated vascular surgery residency (RO-IVSR) programs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association of peer-reviewed research and the RO-IVSR match process. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Vascular surgery residents who matched into an RO-IVSR in 2015-2017 were divided into those matching an RO-IVSR top 10 program versus other. Total publications, first authorships, and type of research were compared between groups. Mann-Whitney U-tests were then performed between discrete levels of research productivity (0-1 versus ≥2 publications) to detect differences in ability to match a top 10 program. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-eight residents published a total of 214 original research articles (83%), 26 case reports (10%), and 19 systematic reviews (7%). There were 66 first authorships (25%). Median total publications at RO-IVSR top 10 versus other programs were 2 versus 1 (P < 0.01). Top 10 IVSR had a significant difference in median publications for all other research categories. The ability to match into a top 10 program by discrete levels of research productivity at 0-1 versus 2+ showed significance (P < 0.05) in all research categories, including total publications, first authorships, and H-index. CONCLUSIONS: There was significantly higher research productivity among medical students who matriculate to top 10 IVSR programs. Furthermore, having 2 or more publications significantly increased the likelihood of attending a top 10 program. Thus, top programs likely use an applicants' research productivity as a distinct qualification category and a marker of future success.

Medical Student Research Productivity: Which Variables are Associated with Matching to a Highly Ranked Orthopaedic Residency Program?

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the importance of an applicant's research productivity in terms of matching into a highly-ranked orthopaedic residency. We characterized the research of orthopaedic residents who matched in 2017 to determine whether 1) program tiers differed by their residents' research; and 2) discrete increases in applicants' research were associated with matching into higher-ranked programs. DESIGN: We searched Scopus for resident publications accepted before 2017 or published through January 2017. Using an established ranking system, programs were ranked (tier-1, highest; tier-5, lowest) by their department's number of citations from 2005 to 2015. We compared resident research productivity among these 5 tiers. We then categorized residents by discrete levels of research productivity (0, 1, or ≥2 publications) and compared the differences in matched program rank. SETTING: Data collection and analysis performed at Johns Hopkins Hospital, a tertiary care center in Baltimore, MD. PARTICIPANTS: We obtained our sample from allopathic orthopaedic program websites, excluding military programs and international students, for a total of 111 programs (565 of 726 matched residents [78%]). RESULTS: Tier-1 and tier-2 programs differed significantly in their residents' publications, h-index, and citations. Programs of other tiers did not differ significantly. Applicants with 1 publication matched to higher-ranked residency programs than those with 0 publications. When comparing residents with 1 publication versus residents with more than 1 publication, we found no significant differences in program rank matched. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that higher-tier orthopaedic residency programs match residents with greater research productivity than do lower-tier programs. Having 1 publication was associated with matching into a higher-ranked program but no significant associations were observed beyond the first publication.