223 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29935263)
21. Perspectives of Residency Applicants and Program Directors on the Role of Social Media in the 2021 Urology Residency Match.
Heard JR; Wyant WA; Loeb S; Marcovich R; Dubin JM
Urology; 2022 Jun; 164():68-73. PubMed ID: 34606880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Urology Residency Applications in the COVID-19 Era.
Kenigsberg AP; Khouri RK; Kuprasertkul A; Wong D; Ganesan V; Lemack GE
Urology; 2020 Sep; 143():55-61. PubMed ID: 32562774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Prevalence, Bias, and Rank List Impact of Illegal Questions in Surgical Specialty Residency Interviews.
Theiss LM; Prather JC; Porterfield JR; Corey B; Chen H; McGwin G; Johnson MD; Theiss SM
J Surg Educ; 2022; 79(1):69-76. PubMed ID: 34400121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The Virtual Urology Residency Match Process: Moving Beyond the Pandemic.
Carpinito GP; Khouri RK; Kenigsberg AP; Ganesan V; Kuprasertkul A; Caldwell KM; Hudak SJ; Lemack GE
Urology; 2021 Dec; 158():33-38. PubMed ID: 34280439
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Influencing Factors of Preference Signaling in the 2022 Urology Residency Match.
Kim JK; Morrison B; Bylund J; Rasper A; Dropkin BM
Urology; 2023 May; 175():35-41. PubMed ID: 36805414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Impact of Match Violations on Applicants' Perceptions and Rankings of Residency Programs.
Monir RL; Michaudet K; Monir JG; Rahmanian KP; Michaudet C; Cooper LA; Harrell H
Cureus; 2021 Jan; 13(1):e12823. PubMed ID: 33628688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Senior medical student opinions regarding the ideal urology interview day.
Jacobs JC; Guralnick ML; Sandlow JI; Langenstroer P; Begun FP; See WA; O'Connor RC
J Surg Educ; 2014; 71(6):878-82. PubMed ID: 24981655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Association of Mentor-to-Program Contact and Applicant Rank Disclosure With Vitreoretinal Fellowship Applicant's Final Match Outcome in 2016 and 2017.
Christiansen SM; Osher JM; Riemann CD
JAMA Ophthalmol; 2018 Jun; 136(6):642-647. PubMed ID: 29710103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Financial burden associated with the residency match in neurological surgery.
Agarwal N; Choi PA; Okonkwo DO; Barrow DL; Friedlander RM
J Neurosurg; 2017 Jan; 126(1):184-190. PubMed ID: 27058197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Survey of Applicant Experience and Cost in the Urology Match: Opportunities for Reform.
Nikonow TN; Lyon TD; Jackman SV; Averch TD
J Urol; 2015 Oct; 194(4):1063-7. PubMed ID: 25912495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Postinterview communication with residency applicants: a call for clarity!
Frishman GN; Matteson KA; Bienstock JL; George KE; Ogburn T; Rauk PN; Schnatz PF; Learman LA
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Oct; 211(4):344-350.e1. PubMed ID: 25068562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Asking for a commitment: violations during the 2007 match and the effect on applicant rank lists.
Hern HG; Johnson B; Alter HJ; Wills CP; Snoey ER; Simon BC
West J Emerg Med; 2015 Mar; 16(2):331-5. PubMed ID: 25834683
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Recruitment behavior and program directors: how ethical are their perspectives about the match process?
Carek PJ; Anderson KD; Blue AV; Mavis BE
Fam Med; 2000 Apr; 32(4):258-60. PubMed ID: 10782372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Randomized evaluation of a web based interview process for urology resident selection.
Shah SK; Arora S; Skipper B; Kalishman S; Timm TC; Smith AY
J Urol; 2012 Apr; 187(4):1380-4. PubMed ID: 22341282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Impact of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on Professional Decision-Making Among Urology Applicants.
Peters CE; Seideman CA; Kauderer S; Gore JL; Holt SK; Mehta A; Singer EA; Tabakin AL; Thavaseelan S; Vemulakonda V; Posid T; Velez D
Urology; 2024 May; 187():49-54. PubMed ID: 38431159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The Canadian Urology Fair: a model for minimizing the financial and academic costs of the residency selection process.
Grober ED; Matsumoto ED; Jewett MA; Chin JL;
Can J Surg; 2003 Dec; 46(6):458-62. PubMed ID: 14680354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. A survey of pediatric urology fellowship applicants: past priorities to guide future possibilities.
Ernst M; Ebert K; Rehfuss A; McLeod D; Alpert S
J Pediatr Urol; 2022 Dec; 18(6):787.e1-787.e8. PubMed ID: 35780044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Applicant Perceptions of Postinterview Communication During the 2022 to 2023 Neurosurgery Recruitment Cycle: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.
Laskay NMB; Boudreau HS; Estevez-Ordonez D; George JA; Atchley TJ; Bentley JN; Rozzelle CJ
World Neurosurg; 2024 Jan; 181():e597-e606. PubMed ID: 37914078
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The integrity of the dermatology National Resident Matching Program: results of a national study.
Sbicca JA; Gorell ES; Kanzler MH; Lane AT
J Am Acad Dermatol; 2010 Oct; 63(4):594-601. PubMed ID: 20599295
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Emergency medicine residency applicant perceptions of unethical recruiting practices and illegal questioning in the match.
Thurman RJ; Katz E; Carter W; Han J; Kayala E; McCoin N; Storrow AB
Acad Emerg Med; 2009 Jun; 16(6):550-7. PubMed ID: 19388912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
