Reporting of Research by Matched Otolaryngology Residency Applicants. (February 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dhanda, Aatin K.; Ward, Brittany; Warren, Christopher J.; Birkenfeld, Ben; Georges, Kirolos; Taruvai, Varun; Paskhover, Boris
• Is Part Of: Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Volume 130:Number 2(2021)
• Page Start: 133
• Page End: 135
• Publication Date: 2021-02
• Subjects: clinical research -- medical education -- residency program director -- residency training -- resident education; Otolaryngology -- Periodicals; 617.51
• DOI: 10.1177/0003489420938821
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0003-4894

Abstract

Objectives: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.