Is it common for students to be involved in meta-analyses or original investigations? Also how common is it for them to be the first author? I guess I assume that would be nearly impossible for an original investigation. I know literally nothing about residency apps and how various forms of research look on them, so getting the chance to hear residents' thoughts on this matter is sick. I'm going to be the first author on a meta-analysis and merely chose to do so because I was interested in the topic and love stats, so just trying to figure out where it stands in the grand scheme on achievement in terms of research for a student.
Look at my signature. I'm an incoming intern. I was a med student a month ago. I changed my status because we started orientation and I figured I'd forget once I actually started. So while I've been through the application process, I haven't seen a lot of applications, so you should not take my word as gold.
Whether you are first author or not (theoretically) has to do with how much of the paper you write. Med students, especially in their fourth year, tend to have more time to write than residents and attendings, so it tends to be easier to get that first author position. Whether you can get it for an original investigation depends on what the original investigation is (retrospective analysis vs prospective analysis, etc), but yes, it's more rare, since they tend to be long trials.
In terms of how much effort goes into the papers, a case report is considered the easiest, because it's a single case (or a small series of cases), with a short literature review. They tend not to need IRB approval, you don't do any data analysis, etc.
Reviews are above that, because they are more time consuming and require a much more in-depth review of the literature. But, since you're not generally looking at individual patients, you also generally don't need IRB approval, and still aren't doing data analysis. It can be difficult for students to get first author on these, since they are often requested, rather than written and submitted, unless they go to a journal designed for student authors.
Meta analyses have you actually crunching numbers, so I'd say they're above a standard review paper.
The rest are all on their own spectrum that tends to vary depending on how much you actually did. My roommate did a study completely on her own, from getting IRB approval to designing and collecting the data, to crunching the numbers, to writing the paper (she had someone to go to for help, but she was left to do everything basically on her own). She did a survey, which made the actual data collection fairly simple. Those doing chart reviews have a more time intensive job, but are less likely to have done the designing part of the study, even if they do the rest. Then, there's prospective studies, which are even less likely to have been designed by the student, and probably do fewer other things as well, since the PIs tend to recruit help during the patient recruitment phase. Thus, a student has likely moved on before the paper can be written or submitted, so it's less likely the student will be first author.
So, any research on your CV will help you (having none
may harm you in some circumstances), and the more involved you are, the better it looks. Just be sure you know what the study is so you can actually talk about it when it comes time to interview.
