So is an intern a PGY-1?

[maxx52188]

Im really confused how residency works after match. Wiki says that the intern year is no longer called the intern year, but the PGY-1, which from my understanding is a first year resident. but the way everyone is throwing these titles around, PGY-1 = 1st yr resident =/= intern.

Can anyone clear this up for me? for example, which general surg residency is correct

1
inter year
pgy-1
pgy-2
pgy-3
pgy-4
pgy-5
total=6yrs
or

2
pgy-1
pgy-2
pgy-3
pgy-4
pgy-5
total=5yrs

THANKS!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[smq123]

PGY-1 = intern = 1st year resident.

 

[maxx52188]

Cool, thanks!

 

[Law2Doc]

...Wiki says that the intern year is no longer called the intern year, but the PGY-1, ...

You should learn that wiki is far from an accurate resource. Any resource where *****s at large can enter in "facts" should be viewed with extreme skepticism.

 

[thesauce]

You should learn that wiki is far from an accurate resource. Any resource where *****s at large can enter in "facts" should be viewed with extreme skepticism.

You know, I was actually reading an article the other day that claimed wiki is, on average, better than encyclopedias because it's more up to date and has been edited by multiple sources. I think wiki is phasing out (for hot button topics especially) the ability for just anyone to edit it and citations are now required for most statements.

 

[Law2Doc]

You know, I was actually reading an article the other day that claimed wiki is, on average, better than encyclopedias because it's more up to date and has been edited by multiple sources. I think wiki is phasing out (for hot button topics especially) the ability for just anyone to edit it and citations are now required for most statements.

If I'm going to make up facts, I'm probably apt to make up citations too. I know many many many people who have been burned trying to rely on wiki as an accurate resource. It isn't. Until they only let reputable people enter facts and fact check them before they appear on line, it will never be a reliable resource if you really truly need to know the answer. If you are using it to BS, then sure, the half facts and half truths in there probably won't cramp your style. But if you actually need to know that something is accurate, it is the wrong cite. For medical issues, try e-medicine articles. Those are written by clinicians at various academic institutions and are pretty solid. And for a fee things like uptodate are awesome resources. But wiki isn't of the same quality, and you use it at your own peril, as the above example suggests.

 

[Buzz Me]

Please do not fall into the common trap of relying in Wikipedia to look up medical topics. All med students here do that.

 

[gutonc]

Please do not fall into the common trap of relying in Wikipedia to look up medical topics. All med students here do that.

A grad student in the lab next to mine just failed his oral qualifying exam because he cited Wikipedia when explaining background information on his project. As much as I like the guy, I wholeheartedly support his committee's decision.

 

[Buzz Me]

A grad student in the lab next to mine just failed his oral qualifying exam because he cited Wikipedia when explaining background information on his project. As much as I like the guy, I wholeheartedly support his committee's decision.

I have no idea how people pick up this bad habit...is it because Wikipedia results are usually one of the first links offered by a Google search? Does this therefore mean that, out of pure laziness, people just enter their search terms in Google as opposed to looking in a textbook, journal or somewhere more reputable like eMedicine?

 

[JonnyG]

Using uptodate as your main source is almost as bad. What's sad is they have the links to the actual article at the bottom of the page. It makes it so easy to evaluate the source of the info

 

[Law2Doc]

Using uptodate as your main source is almost as bad. What's sad is they have the links to the actual article at the bottom of the page. It makes it so easy to evaluate the source of the info

Sure, but at least there the articles are edited by practitioners rather than some bored grad student who makes up stuff if he doesn't know the answer (as seems to happen on Wiki quite frequently).

 

[DaveinDallas]

During orientation last week, we were advised not to use wikipedia for our medical information as our attendings and upper levels take a real dim view of that.....

UptoDate was not much better, but it did provide quick and dirty basic info....we were instructed that we had access to a medical school library with fully staffed and paid librarians that were more than willing to pull every article on a topic if we asked and send the printouts to clinic for our 'perusal'.....

In other words, get the real deal to base your practice habits off of.....don't be lazy in training....

 

[Buzz Me]

Uptodate is often a crutch for Medicine/Peds/OB/GYN residents. Other fields don't tend to use it (because there isn't a lot of specialty info in there, not because they're necessarily any less lazy).

 

[thesauce]

If I'm going to make up facts, I'm probably apt to make up citations too. I know many many many people who have been burned trying to rely on wiki as an accurate resource. It isn't. Until they only let reputable people enter facts and fact check them before they appear on line, it will never be a reliable resource if you really truly need to know the answer. If you are using it to BS, then sure, the half facts and half truths in there probably won't cramp your style. But if you actually need to know that something is accurate, it is the wrong cite. For medical issues, try e-medicine articles. Those are written by clinicians at various academic institutions and are pretty solid. And for a fee things like uptodate are awesome resources. But wiki isn't of the same quality, and you use it at your own peril, as the above example suggests.

If we're speaking strictly about the realm of medicine, I agree that wiki should not be your primary source for information. However, I like to use it as a first pass and check their sources to verify accuracy. It gives you a pretty good overall picture IMO. Citing them as a source is not wise as there is heavy bias against it in the academic world.

 

[Law2Doc]

... as there is heavy bias against it in the academic world.

Because there is good reason. The bias isn't just academics thumbing their nose. The bias exists because there is a lot of crappy information on there. Rely on it at your own peril. And don't rely on it for medicine related matters.

 

[gutonc]

If we're speaking strictly about the realm of medicine, I agree that wiki should not be your primary source for information. However, I like to use it as a first pass and check their sources to verify accuracy. It gives you a pretty good overall picture IMO. Citing them as a source is not wise as there is heavy bias against it in the academic world.

Sure...I'll use it to find out what county Akron is in, or what they call Santa Claus in Luxembourg. Otherwise...not so muchly.

 

[thesauce]

Because there is good reason. The bias isn't just academics thumbing their nose. The bias exists because there is a lot of crappy information on there. Rely on it at your own peril. And don't rely on it for medicine related matters.

Practically speaking, wiki shouldn't be referenced because original sources should be cited whenever possible. Does citing a wiki article (which has accurately quoted and cited the original source) make it any less accurate? No. But it's inappropriate by academic standards.

BTW, standard textbooks and expert opinions are also pretty far down the list of what constitutes "good evidence."

 

[Law2Doc]

Practically speaking, wiki shouldn't be referenced because original sources should be cited whenever possible. Does citing a wiki article (which has accurately quoted and cited the original source) make it any less accurate? No. But it's inappropriate by academic standards.

BTW, standard textbooks and expert opinions are also pretty far down the list of what constitutes "good evidence."

There are multiple reasons not to cite wiki. The one you describe is certainly one. But the more important one is that it is often inaccurate.

 

[DD214_DOC]

Anyone can add, change, or remove information from any wikipedia article. This is probably the biggest and most obvious reason to not use it.

See how easy it is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_vegetative_state