Basic science vs clinical research for residency

[dgu334]

What kind of research/pub is considered more "prestigious" for residency purposes

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bashwell]

What kind of research/pub is considered more "prestigious" for residency purposes

I don't think the primary distinction is between basic science vs clinical research. It's more about the quality of your research. It's better to have a clinically oriented first author RCT or systematic review published in a high impact or otherwise prestigious journal like the NEJM, JAMA, BMJ, Nature, or Science than it is to have a basic science paper published in a journal no one has ever heard of. See the "Hierarchy of evidence" for a good start.

Generally speaking, however, if you're a med student, then almost any research/publication would likely look fine or at least not hurt, even if low quality (e.g. case reports, posters, conference presentations, abstracts, papers).

 

[doc05]

It's better to have a clinically oriented first author RCT or systematic review published in a high impact or otherwise prestigious journal like the NEJM, JAMA, BMJ, Nature, or Science

don't be ridiculous. no med student will have this. why even mention this??

 

[DrEnderW]

don't be ridiculous. no med student will have this. why even mention this??

Yeah first author in NEJM for a RCT is a stretch, but there are definitely med students publishing major, multi-year studies in top specialty journals. There are a few in my field of interest at least. That's rare enough that is doesn't even realistically matter to most students, especially those looking to just begin research.

 

[dgu334]

I highly doubt 99% of med students can publish anything in a journal that has an impact factor in the double digits. Even if they did, they're probably thrown in as a coauthor in a long list of names. I should have been more clear. Is it better to have a first author pub in basic science or first author pub in clinical research, considering the journal prestige is about the same. I ask this because in basic science, data is a lot harder to obtain and writing up a paper in basic science takes a lot longer than that for clinical research so I was wondering if residency directors took this into account.

 

[pd1112]

I think it depends on what field is involved. Some just want to see any involvement in research, whereas others might evaluate your level of involvement based on the type of study. For example, I would imagine anyone reviewing your app would know the difference in amount of of work involved with case reports, retrospective chart reviews and literature reviews vs. anything prospective, anything involving a grant, any prospective basic science project that finds something potentially meaningful for a particularly field, etc.

 

[TBV]

In speaking with residents and res. directors they have told me that while it is possible to crank out multiple chart review type clinical papers in medical school. When you get to the interview the basic science researcher med studs often have more to talk about and have developed skills beyond reading a chart. The advice I was given was to pursue a basic science project, complete it and then do something clinical during third year when I figure out what specialty I would like to pursue.

 

[cs24]

In speaking with residents and res. directors they have told me that while it is possible to crank out multiple chart review type clinical papers in medical school. When you get to the interview the basic science researcher med studs often have more to talk about and have developed skills beyond reading a chart. The advice I was given was to pursue a basic science project, complete it and then do something clinical during third year when I figure out what specialty I would like to pursue.

I'd disagree with this. Basic science has a huge potential to be a timesink with no reward, and time is short for a medical student to actually get anything done in it. I would recommend starting out clinical, getting at a paper or two to your name, then moving towards your field of interest as you figure out what you want to do. Past success predicts future success, and you can always apply the skills/experience you gained doing research (and going through the publishing process) in one field to a new field.

I really don't know what "skills" you would develop doing basic science research that would matter to most residencies (pipetting skills? molecular techniques? streamlining protocols?). Then again, I also had a ton of basic science research done pre-medical school, so you could just be talking about the intangibles involved in designing your own experiments rather than just looking up data for a question someone has handed you to answer that I take for granted now.

 

[TBV]

I'd disagree with this. Basic science has a huge potential to be a timesink with no reward, and time is short for a medical student to actually get anything done in it. I would recommend starting out clinical, getting at a paper or two to your name, then moving towards your field of interest as you figure out what you want to do. Past success predicts future success, and you can always apply the skills/experience you gained doing research (and going through the publishing process) in one field to a new field.

I really don't know what "skills" you would develop doing basic science research that would matter to most residencies (pipetting skills? molecular techniques? streamlining protocols?). Then again, I also had a ton of basic science research done pre-medical school, so you could just be talking about the intangibles involved in designing your own experiments rather than just looking up data for a question someone has handed you to answer that I take for granted now.

Well me personally I was doing microsurgeries on rodent models in order to harvest organs so I learned the techniques associated with that (pretty advanced for an MS1); since you're so curious.

 

[doc05]

most residency program directors are clinicians. why would you ever think that basic science research is a priority??

it's not - at least not for the VAST MAJORITY of programs.

 

[dgu334]

most residency program directors are clinicians. why would you ever think that basic science research is a priority??

it's not - at least not for the VAST MAJORITY of programs.

I'm not saying it's a priority, rather i thought it would be perceived as more "prestigious" because a basic science pub usually requires more effort/time than a clinical review pub and hoped that residency directors realize and take that into consideration.

 

[bashwell]

most residency program directors are clinicians. why would you ever think that basic science research is a priority??

it's not - at least not for the VAST MAJORITY of programs.

With all due respect doc05 that's not what OP is saying. I suspect you unfortunately have a bad habit of reading too quickly without completely grasping what's said, then criticizing the person for what you thought they said rather than what they actually said, which is unfair to them. If so, then I'd suggest taking the time and slowing down a bit more to read in the future so you can better assess what they actually have said.

 

[cs24]

Well me personally I was doing microsurgeries on rodent models in order to harvest organs so I learned the techniques associated with that (pretty advanced for an MS1); since you're so curious.

 

[cs24]

I'm not saying it's a priority, rather i thought it would be perceived as more "prestigious" because a basic science pub usually requires more effort/time than a clinical review pub and hoped that residency directors realize and take that into consideration.

This has been discussed on here many times. The general consensus is that basic science papers are indeed viewed as more "prestigious" for lack of a better word, because PDs know they take more time, effort, skill, etc. However, it is up to you to balance the worth of the nebulous prestige factor vs the reality of decreased productivity when compared to clinical research. If you were a PD and saw one applicant with multiple first author clinical pubs and another applicant with one nth author basic science paper and a summer poster or something, the basic science prestige might not make up for the lack of concrete results by your second applicant.

These are obviously just general guidelines, only you know your own abilities, available free time, the pros and cons of your individual project opportunities/PIs, etc. I already gave my personal opinion on the topic above, which has worked out well for me.

 

[OnePunchBiopsy]

I think it really depends on the QUALITY of your research and your AUTHORSHIP and CONTRIBUTION on the paper, not so much if it is basic science or clinical research.

It is a common conception that basic science research can be a longer process than clinical research, and some people make the assumption that basic science means harder work. Not always the case.

 

[DrBodacious]

Nth author vs nth author, same tier journal, basic science is better