importance of research

[engagement]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I was just wondering how important doing research is in getting into a solid residency program. I don't plan on pursuing the research path. Thanks.

 

[MrBurns10]

It really depends on what field you want to go into and how solid of an applicant you are otherwise. For example, for the less competitive specialties (e.g. fam med, peds) and some medium competitive residencies (e.g. EM, anesthesiology) most applicants don't have research, especially not enough to publish anything. So if you're interested in those and hate the idea of research, I wouldn't worry about it, though I should say that good research experience ALWAYS helps. For the most competitive residencies (plastics, derm, rad onc) research is almost a necessity...not every applicant has it, but it's highly recommended.

 

[howelljolly]

Get your hands on the "Charting Match Outcomes" report from the NRMP, which is floating around the SDN. That will tell you how many successful applicants from each discipline has research experience.

 

[TheMightyAngus]

On a related note, how important is specialty-specific research? I'm currently working on a project for a field I'm no longer interested in. But it's pretty ground breaking work so I'm reluctant to walk away from it.

I would think that high impact research in a different field is better than a minor project in the chosen specialty. But I'm no residency director.

Assuming that most med students don't decide on a specialty until the end of 3rd year, do program directors care what you research so long as you're successful and publish?

 

[PeepshowJohnny]

I think it's importance is overstated. Look at the NRMP Outcomes document, Table 3. Research experience and Publications are not significant predictors of match success.

 

[howelljolly]

I think it's importance is overstated. Look at the NRMP Outcomes document, Table 3. Research experience and Publications are not significant predictors of match success.

Yeah, I guess so. But if Im reading it right (Pg. 5, Table-2), doesn't it say that across the board, almost every applicant has an average of 2 research experiences? So, if you dont have any research experience, wouldn't you stick out, and have your application filed under R, for Rejected.

 

[Ashers]

I've also been told that undergrad research counts for residencies, so it doesn't have to all be during med school.

 

[45408]

Yeah, I guess so. But if Im reading it right (Pg. 5, Table-2), doesn't it say that across the board, almost every applicant has an average of 2 research experiences? So, if you dont have any research experience, wouldn't you stick out, and have your application filed under R, for Rejected.

Remember that what some people call research experience may be very different than what you're thinking. Checking off the "I did research" box doesn't mean "I was a first author in four Science publications on cancer."

 

[MSKalltheway]

Remember that what some people call research experience may be very different than what you're thinking. Checking off the "I did research" box doesn't mean "I was a first author in four Science publications on cancer."

👍 Touche. Many students do research during the summer after MS-1 year, some contribute a few hrs every week to a study during the school year, some do a one month research elective. Chart reviews, case studies (often more than one "interesting" patient for those who are extra motivated) and small pilot studies are quick ways to say you did research. Presentations also count for something, dont remember what though. Add in stuff from undergrad, time off in between undergrad and med school, Master's or PhD research...see how "quickly" it can add up?

 

[Gabujabu]

I would agree with the comments above. Different kinds of publications naturally vary greatly in time commitment and quality. Although such a large percentage of residency applicants have publications, it is definitely not the case that they are averaging two first-authored papers in NEJM or Nature. The majority of these publications are chart reviews and case reports that, while they are important and helpful in matching into residencies, do not require an inordinate amount of time. In fact, these kinds of research projects can also be done during the clinical years, something that cannot be said for most basic science projects. In addition, if I am not mistaken, presentations also count towards this number. With such a loose definition for publications, I would not be surprised if there are numerous people straight out of undergrad who already have 1-5 of them.

 

[RxnMan]

Remember that what some people call research experience may be very different than what you're thinking. Checking off the "I did research" box doesn't mean "I was a first author in four Science publications on cancer."

I agree. In the NRMP explanations they explicitly state that the quality of the "research experiences" and "publications" listed by applicants on their ERAS varied greatly. Look around for AProgDirector's posts - he once had a student who listed every page on their website as a "publication."

On specialty-specific research - I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter all that much. PDs I've spoken to say it's nice, but not necessary to have them match (Sx research for Sx, path for path, etc.). In the absence of knowing how you want to specialize, I would suggest doing something that is broad in scope - look at hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, CVD - all of these conditions have systemic effects and can be spun at will.