How Much Is Not Enough? Contextualizing Recent Trends in the Urology Residency Match

Urology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 139 ◽  
pp. 215
Author(s):  
Kevin Koo ◽  
Eugene B. Cone
2010 ◽  
Vol 183 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Shortliffe ◽  
Randall Baldassarre ◽  
Alexandra Tilt ◽  
Allison Grossman

Urology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Ho ◽  
Ezra Margolin ◽  
Elisabeth Sebesta ◽  
Alexander Small ◽  
Gina M. Badalato

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 296-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Pagano ◽  
Kimberly L. Cooper ◽  
James M. McKiernan ◽  
Gina M. Badalato

Urology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianpaolo P. Carpinito ◽  
Roger K. Khouri ◽  
Alexander P. Kenigsberg ◽  
Vishnu Ganesan ◽  
Amy Kuprasertkul ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 185-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger K. Khouri ◽  
Byron D. Joyner ◽  
Gary E. Lemack

Urology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 39-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carrie M. Aisen ◽  
Wilson Sui ◽  
Jamie S. Pak ◽  
Matthew Pagano ◽  
Kimberly L. Cooper ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 084653712097174
Author(s):  
David Li ◽  
Paul H. Yi ◽  
Nayaar Islam ◽  
Raman Verma ◽  
Matthew D. F. McInnes

Introduction: Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have generated uncertainty about the future of radiology among medical students. However, it is unclear whether this has affected radiology residency applications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate recent trends in the Canadian radiology residency match. Methods: Canadian Resident Matching Service annual data reports from 2010-2020 were collected. Statistics were extracted for Canadian medical graduates applying to radiology in the R-1 main residency match and analyzed using linear regression. Results: The number of available radiology residency positions decreased ( P = .01); declining from 84 in 2010 to 81 in 2020 (mean = 83.1). The overall number of applicants did not change ( P = .08, mean = 131.8). The proportion of applicants with radiology as their first choice decreased ( P = .001); declining from 4.5% in 2010 to 3.1% in 2020 (mean = 3.4%). The number of applicants applying exclusively to radiology also decreased ( P = .02); declining from 39 in 2010 to 16 in 2020 (mean = 23). Positions per applicant ( P = 0.24, mean = 0.64), and positions per applicant with radiology as their first choice did not change ( P = 0.07, mean = 0.91). Conclusion: While the overall number of students applying to radiology did not change, the number of applicants ranking radiology as their first or only choice decreased sharply. This analysis corroborates recent reports of increased workload, burnout, and declining reimbursement as well as uncertainty about the future of radiology due to advances in AI.


Author(s):  
R. C. O'Connor ◽  
S. Engelsgjerd ◽  
A. Koraym ◽  
M. Wong ◽  
J. I. Sandlow

Urology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 143 ◽  
pp. 272-273
Author(s):  
Yi Quan Tan ◽  
Xiang Wen Gregory Pek ◽  
Ziting Wang ◽  
Ho Yee Tiong ◽  
Edmund Chiong

Urology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan Spencer ◽  
David Ambinder ◽  
Cindy Christiano ◽  
John Phillips ◽  
Muhammad Choudhury ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document