Research necessary for competitive residencies?

[aprilpremed]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi everyone,

I'm a 3rd year and am finding myself leaning toward OB/Gyn. I'm still kind of a novice as far as OB/Gyn goes ... but was wondering if my application will be weakened by lack of research. I still have the option to add 4th year time for research, so would consider this.

Any input would be greatly appreciated!

 

[delphynium]

My opinion is apparently not - from what I've seen. I am sure it will not hurt though. It's important for fellowhips after ObGyn residency.

 

[Diane L. Evans]

agree
Most impt to do a Sub-I with a well known doc to get a good letter of reference. i.e one that publishes

 

[dudeob]

I disagree. I think that clinical research probably doesn't matter. However, if you have done good solid basic science research...you will do extremely well. I have had this experience. It has been amazing the response of programs to basic science research in obgyn. so do it if you can.

 

[delphynium]

if you have done good solid basic science research...you will do extremely well. I have had this experience. It has been amazing the response of programs to basic science research in obgyn. QUOTE]

That's interesting - I have seen kind of the other way around - basic science research not helping at all because it's too basic and some clinicians do not look at it as being applicable at all, however some chart review (much easier and much faster) being viewed as a positive point, but overall research being viewed as not important for ObGyn residency. Could you please tell us a little bit about your experience with programs responding so positively to basic science research. I would be very grateful if you could share your story.

 

[NYC Girl]

My experience during interviews was that research, when present, was a pleasant surprise - I had a lot of clinical/public health research (3 projects during med school, no publications but one conference presentation) and everyone seemed inordinately impressed and/or surprised, even at some really top-notch programs where I had thought most interviewees would have research experience.

I agree with what everyone has said - clinical grades, OB/Gyn rotations and Sub-I, and LETTERS, LETTERS, LETTERS. At every interview, my interviewers mentioned my recommendation letters - "I see you worked with Dr. So and So, she is my best friend" or "I know Dr. X very well, etc. etc. etc." It is a relatively small world, esp. among the really prolific researchers, so if you can get a letter from someone well-known (or else someone who had trained at or worked at the particular institution, this happened a few times as well) it carries a great deal of weight.

 

[dudeob]

Basic science research is coveted by top notch academic programs. Especially programs that have 20+ PhD's and millions in grant money. Clinical research is probably favored by smaller programs or community programs. Having basic science research shows that you are a scientist as well as a physician and that you have skills in the laboratory. Basic science research pays MUCH more in the way of grant money. All in all, it is a much more involved and complicated process than clinical research and shows dedication and hard work. I have repeatedly had program directors say that they were "very impressed" that I made time for basic science research in medical school. However, I am looking mostly at big academic programs, and if you're not interested in that, then it's probably just a waste of time.