TY - JOUR
T1 - Success in the Pediatric Surgery Match
T2 - A survey of the 2010 applicant pool
AU - Beres, Alana
AU - Baird, Robert
AU - Puligandla, Pramod S.
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2011 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2011/5
Y1 - 2011/5
N2 - Background/Purpose: Traditionally, basic science research and publication record have led to a successful Pediatric Surgery Match. With changing applicant research backgrounds, we evaluated if these or other factors still apply. Methods: A SurveyMonkey questionnaire was distributed to 57 applicants with known contact information. We assessed demographic/financial data, application details and match results, research experience, publications, presence of a pediatric surgery fellowship at their home program, and applicant ranking criteria. Results: Forty-three (75%) responses were received. Twenty-five candidates matched, 12 (48%) to 1 of their first 3 choices. The median number of programs applied to was similar for matched and unmatched candidates (30), but matched candidates attended more interviews (21 vs 14.5; P = .03). Matched applicants had more publications (9.5 vs 5.1; P = .03), although research experience was similar to unmatched candidates. Research focus for matched vs total applicants included basic science (5 vs 12), clinical (4 vs 6), and both (11 vs 16). Five candidates matched without research experience. Ten (40%) applicants matched to institutions where they completed residency/research/ fellowship training. Twelve (49%) applicants matched from programs without a fellowship program. Conclusion: A strong publication record remains important, although clinical research is being valued more. Candidates from nonfellowship programs can be successful. This information may be useful to mentor future applicants and lays the foundation for a critical evaluation of the match process.
AB - Background/Purpose: Traditionally, basic science research and publication record have led to a successful Pediatric Surgery Match. With changing applicant research backgrounds, we evaluated if these or other factors still apply. Methods: A SurveyMonkey questionnaire was distributed to 57 applicants with known contact information. We assessed demographic/financial data, application details and match results, research experience, publications, presence of a pediatric surgery fellowship at their home program, and applicant ranking criteria. Results: Forty-three (75%) responses were received. Twenty-five candidates matched, 12 (48%) to 1 of their first 3 choices. The median number of programs applied to was similar for matched and unmatched candidates (30), but matched candidates attended more interviews (21 vs 14.5; P = .03). Matched applicants had more publications (9.5 vs 5.1; P = .03), although research experience was similar to unmatched candidates. Research focus for matched vs total applicants included basic science (5 vs 12), clinical (4 vs 6), and both (11 vs 16). Five candidates matched without research experience. Ten (40%) applicants matched to institutions where they completed residency/research/ fellowship training. Twelve (49%) applicants matched from programs without a fellowship program. Conclusion: A strong publication record remains important, although clinical research is being valued more. Candidates from nonfellowship programs can be successful. This information may be useful to mentor future applicants and lays the foundation for a critical evaluation of the match process.
KW - Match application
KW - Pediatric Surgery Match
KW - Ranking
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79957555078&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79957555078&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2011.02.030
DO - 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2011.02.030
M3 - Article
C2 - 21616260
AN - SCOPUS:79957555078
SN - 0022-3468
VL - 46
SP - 957
EP - 961
JO - Journal of Pediatric Surgery
JF - Journal of Pediatric Surgery
IS - 5
ER -