About Clinical experience

Started by lordman
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
L

lordman

Full Member
10+ Year Member
I want to ask which of these clinical experience considered higher for match.
I noticed many replies about Clinical research & Clinical chart review.
Some say the former is better, other say the latter is better.
My first question, which is better for increasing match chances ?

Which is better, first author of clinical chart review with full professor or
3rd or may be 4th author of clinical research with group of full professors ?

Thanks in advance
 
lordman said:
I want to ask which of these clinical experience considered higher for match.
I noticed many replies about Clinical research & Clinical chart review.
Some say the former is better, other say the latter is better.
My first question, which is better for increasing match chances ?

Which is better, first author of clinical chart review with full professor or
3rd or may be 4th author of clinical research with group of full professors ?

Thanks in advance
Click to expand...

It really depends on a lot of other factors.

Depends on the quality of the research and the journal in which it is published. Depends on the topic. Depends on whether this is integral to your overall career arc. Depends on whether you are able to discuss this coherently during your interview and how it relates to your overall career arc. etc.

That said, in the field of medical/clinical research, evaluators tend not to frown on multiple-authored publications. In sociology or economics, for example, the number of authors on a paper tends to dilute its value when others are assessing your high-poweredness: it is much better to have a single-authored paper than a paper with 3 authors on it. Not so in medicine. You can be first author on a single-authored paper, or you can be first author on a paper with 10 authors -- in most cases, people won't really care. For the most part, all they really care about is whether or not you are first author.

You should be aware that no amount of research can make up for critical deficiencies in the rest of your application. There are many, many, many more important reasons beyond having a 1st or 7th-authored publication that explain why applicants fail to match.

-AT.
 
Last edited:
lordman said:
I want to ask which of these clinical experience considered higher for match.
I noticed many replies about Clinical research & Clinical chart review.
Some say the former is better, other say the latter is better.
My first question, which is better for increasing match chances ?

Which is better, first author of clinical chart review with full professor or
3rd or may be 4th author of clinical research with group of full professors ?

Thanks in advance
Click to expand...
The questions are not so cut and dry. "What type of research is better then the other"; it all depends. Probably most importantly on what the project is and over all caliber of study. Is it something someone anticipates will be significant enough to publish in top tier journals? That is hard to say. What can help is looking at mentor's track record of what he/she studies and where he/she publishes. There are plenty of folks published in oodles of journals.... nobody has ever heard of or read....

The other thing is time. A large randomized controlled trial takes time. A chart review not much time. So, types of studies may be dictated by your time available. People still place students and residents names in the author position on projects that have run years. But, journals are becoming stricter on what level of participation warrants authorship.

As to authorship position, it is up to the mentor. In general, you would like to be in one of the top three author spots. That keeps your name in the medline search. We have generally had the mentor/professor/lead researcher be third, statistician second and resident first and everyone else 4th, 5t, 6th, etc... The shuffling in the top three usually is between the PI and resident for 1st or 3rd spot. Again, depends on project, etc.
 
Thank you both doctor AT & doctor Jack for reply

But May you explain to me what is clinical chart review is ?
What is the difference between clinical chart review & review article ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.