Unveiling the Need to Improve Personalized Applicant Tools: A Critical Evaluation of the Reliability of the Texas STAR database in Predicting Match Success for Plastic Surgery Applicants.

Clicks: 104
ID: 280639
2024
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #29 of 33 articles by views in Journal of surgical education

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Using Texas STAR (seeking transparency in application to residency), we aimed to 1) examine predictors of matching success in integrated plastic surgery residency programs and 2) assess the reliability of the tool.A retrospective analysis of self-reported nationwide data of plastic surgery residency applicants between 2021 and 2023 across 146 participating medical schools were included. A comparison analysis was performed between matched and unmatched applicants using chi-squared tests, t-tests, and logistic regression models. NRMP data and literature were referenced to determine reliability.Of the 209 plastic surgery resident applications, 147 matched (70.3%) and 62 went unmatched (29.7%). Average United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and 2 scores were 248 and 257, respectively. Between matched and unmatched cohorts, no significant differences were observed in Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) status, Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) status, mean number of research experiences/presentations, volunteer experiences, leadership positions, and programs applied. Significant predictors of matching included taking a research year (OR 2.07, CI 0.99-4.34, p= 0.052), 8+ peer-reviewed publications (OR 2.29, CI 1.22-4.30, p = 0.009), geographic connection (p = 0.02), and 13+ interviews attended (OR 2.94, CI 1.56 -5.51, p < 0.001). These findings are consistent with current literature and the NRMP. Upon analysis of the qualitative free text responses on general recommendations for prospective applicants by users, subinternships, connections, interviews, research, letter of recommendation quality, home advantage, and mentorship were prominent themes of advice provided by both matched and unmatched cohorts.Texas STAR is a resourceful and reliable tool. We conclude that a research year and geographic connections are strong predictors of matching in plastic surgery. However, more factors (e.g., applicants' home medical school, number of sub internships, and number of mentors) should be considered to make a well-informed decision on determining their own competitiveness, away rotations and residency programs.
Reference Key
ewing2024unveilingjournal Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Ewing, Jane N;Gala, Zachary;Lemdani, Mehdi S;Crystal, Dustin;Broach, Robyn B;Azoury, Said C;
Journal Journal of surgical education
Year 2024
DOI
10.1016/j.jsurg.2024.06.010
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.