Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2026
The Scarlet Letter of the Unmatched Neurosurgery Reapplicant: Trends, Opinions, and Guidance from a Nationwide Survey.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cole Kyril L, Van Gompel Jamie, Sagher Oren, Pham Martin, Cook Steven, Cole Chad D, Spinner Robert J, Murad Gregory Ja, Couldwell William T, Jensen Randy L, Unmatched Applicants Study Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Increasing interest in neurosurgery residency has led to a growing number of unmatched applicants, who often struggle to find appropriate guidance for their next steps. The authors examined trends, opinions, and options available to unmatched neurosurgery residency reapplicants.
STUDY DESIGN: Demographic data of US applicants from MD programs obtained from the National Resident Matching Program (2009 to 2024) were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA analysis of time-interval averages. Opinions about reapplicants were assessed via an online survey of national neurosurgery leaders, including residency program directors and chairpersons (N = 356).
RESULTS: All application trends showed greater change over time; however, the rate of accepted reapplicants showed no significant change among early (2009 to 2013: 4.8 ± 1.8), mid (2014 to 2018: 7.6 ± 4.8), and recent periods (2019 to 2024: 9.8 ± 2.5; p = 0.068). The survey had a 23.0% response rate (82 of 356). Commonly indicated reasons for failure to match included poor interview skills, weak recommendation letters, and personality issues. Although most survey respondents supported candidates reapplying, dual applications (applying to more than 1 specialty) were not widely encouraged. For those reapplying, pursuing a preliminary general surgery or research fellowship, obtaining new letters of recommendation from new subinternships, and publishing higher-quality research were the most endorsed uses of time before reapplying. However, most programs reported interviewing reapplicants sometimes to rarely and matching a reapplicant rarely to never.
CONCLUSIONS: The number of reapplicants successfully matching into neurosurgery has not changed significantly during the past 15 years. Surveys indicate that leaders view reapplicants unfavorably, despite reapplicants' efforts to improve their applications. These results suggest that neurosurgery mentors may do a disservice to potential reapplicants based on how residency program leadership considers reapplications. Candid guidance is needed for reapplicants in the residency matching process.
STUDY DESIGN: Demographic data of US applicants from MD programs obtained from the National Resident Matching Program (2009 to 2024) were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA analysis of time-interval averages. Opinions about reapplicants were assessed via an online survey of national neurosurgery leaders, including residency program directors and chairpersons (N = 356).
RESULTS: All application trends showed greater change over time; however, the rate of accepted reapplicants showed no significant change among early (2009 to 2013: 4.8 ± 1.8), mid (2014 to 2018: 7.6 ± 4.8), and recent periods (2019 to 2024: 9.8 ± 2.5; p = 0.068). The survey had a 23.0% response rate (82 of 356). Commonly indicated reasons for failure to match included poor interview skills, weak recommendation letters, and personality issues. Although most survey respondents supported candidates reapplying, dual applications (applying to more than 1 specialty) were not widely encouraged. For those reapplying, pursuing a preliminary general surgery or research fellowship, obtaining new letters of recommendation from new subinternships, and publishing higher-quality research were the most endorsed uses of time before reapplying. However, most programs reported interviewing reapplicants sometimes to rarely and matching a reapplicant rarely to never.
CONCLUSIONS: The number of reapplicants successfully matching into neurosurgery has not changed significantly during the past 15 years. Surveys indicate that leaders view reapplicants unfavorably, despite reapplicants' efforts to improve their applications. These results suggest that neurosurgery mentors may do a disservice to potential reapplicants based on how residency program leadership considers reapplications. Candid guidance is needed for reapplicants in the residency matching process.