Objective: This study aims to examine potential gender-based publication disparities among 2023 orthopaedic surgery matched-applicants, investigate variations in research emphasis based on program affiliation and assess publication differences across different geographic regions. Methods: Orthopaedic surgery residency programs participating in the 2023 NRMP with a publicly available incoming resident class were identified using the NRMP database. Each resident was searched using PubMed and ORCID identifiers for publications. Each program was designated as “university-based”, “community-based”, “community-based/university affiliated” or “other” using the American Medical Association’s FRIEDA database. Results: In total, 763 residents were identified with a mean and median number of publications of 6.1 (SD=10.0) and 3.0 (IQR=1.0-7.0) respectively. There was no significant difference in the median number of publications between males (2.0) and females (3.0, p=0.2315). Those who matched to “community-based/university affiliated” (median=2.0) programs had a lower median number of publications than those who matched to “university-based” (median=3.0, p<0.0001) or “other” (median=6.0, p=0.0006). Geographically, applicants in the West-South Central region (median=1.0) had the lowest publication median compared to those in the New England (median=4.0, p=0.0010) or Pacific (median=4.0, p=0.0015) regions. Conclusion: There lies a perceived increase in significance of research publications for competitiveness in the orthopaedic surgery match. This largely follows the elimination of objective Step-1 scoring to help stratify potential applicants. Research remains an objective manner to stratify applicants; however, new data lacks on recent analysis of the 2023 match pool. There was not a significant difference in the number of publications between male vs female matched-applicants. The program category “other” and the New England and Pacific regions had the highest median number of publications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chloe Farnham (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: