Mp39-14 Evaluating the Contribution of the Standardized Letter of Recommendation to a Successful Match in Urology Residency

You have accessJournal of UrologyEducation Research II (MP39)1 May 2024MP39-14 EVALUATING THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE STANDARDIZED LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION TO A SUCCESSFUL MATCH IN UROLOGY RESIDENCY Jeffrey L. Ellis, Minhaj Jabeer, Athena Barrett, Amandip Cheema, Meredith Meyer, and Kristin G. Baldea Jeffrey L. EllisJeffrey L. Ellis , Minhaj JabeerMinhaj Jabeer , Athena BarrettAthena Barrett , Amandip CheemaAmandip Cheema , Meredith MeyerMeredith Meyer , and Kristin G. BaldeaKristin G. Baldea View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008644.01945.6c.14AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Since the introduction and formal endorsement of the standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR) in urology residency applications, few studies have assessed the utilization and relative contribution of the SLOR to matching in urology. We aim to evaluate the contribution of the SLOR to the likelihood of a successful match in urology residency by applying a novel scoring system. METHODS: We conducted an IRB-approved investigation of all applicants to our urology residency program during the 2022-2023 application cycle. We developed a novel scoring system out of 5 points to assess strength of SLOR across all templates. We collected other application data including demographics, medical school ranking, research entries, and Step exam scores. Match outcomes were verified with the Society of Academic Urologists listing. Statistical analysis was performed to assess for factors predictive of a successful match. Multivariable logistic regression was performed. RESULTS: Out of 386 total applicants, 239 (61.9%) had at least one SLOR in their application. SLOR utilization was more prevalent in MD applicants, in those with higher Step 2 scores, and in those who matched (p<0.01). Among those with a SLOR, the Penson template was more widely utilized than the NIH template. The majority of SLOR scores (66.5%) were above a 3.5 out of 5 in our cohort. Multivariable regression for a successful match can be seen in Table 1. Step 1 score, number of research entries and presence of a SLOR were predictive of successful match. However, a SLOR score of 3 or less was strongly associated with not matching (OR 0.021, 95% CI 0.002-0.216). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a SLOR in our application cohort overall was associated with a successful match. Approximately two-thirds of the cohort had SLOR scores above 3.5, indicating substantial inflation. However, a poor SLOR score was highly deleterious to an applicant's chance of matching in urology. This is the first study to apply a SLOR scoring system across all templates and demonstrate that utilization of SLOR can significantly help or hinder an applicant's chance of matching depending on the strength of the letter. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e657 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Jeffrey L. Ellis More articles by this author Minhaj Jabeer More articles by this author Athena Barrett More articles by this author Amandip Cheema More articles by this author Meredith Meyer More articles by this author Kristin G. Baldea More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...