Interest In Urology Research Articles

Scholarly impact of student authorship in urology research

BackgroundH-index is an indicator of research productivity considered in faculty promotion. We examine trends in female authorship and effect of student authorship on H-index of principal investigators (PI). MethodsAuthor gender, degree, designation as student, PI, or other, were recorded from Journal of Endourology from 2011 to 2020. PI Scopus H-index was recorded. PIs were classified into having student authors (SA) or not (nSA). Analysis conducted with IBM SPSS. ResultsOf 819 total articles, 26 ​% had SA. Articles with SAs increased from 22.2 ​% in 2011 to 31.1 ​% in 2020 (p for trend<0.01). There was an increasing trend in female authorship overall (R2 ​= ​0.84). PIs with SA had a significantly higher mean H-index than those without, across all years (SA ​= ​30.91, nSA ​= ​27.45, p ​= ​0.025). ConclusionsStudent authorship is increasing and positively benefits PI H-index. Female authorship is increasing overall within urology. Encouraging mentorship and student research can enhance and support female student interest in urology.

Implementation of a Urologic Surgery Skills Fair for Medical Students

To increase the proportion of applicants to urology residencies, we created a surgical skills fair to introduced urology early in undergraduate medical education. Funded by the Department of Urology, the fair was designed to have student rotations through 12 hands-on practice stations supervised by faculty and an advanced care practitioner or resident physicians. At conclusion, medical students completed a voluntary survey about their experience. Surgical skills fairs were organized at Yale School of Medicine (New Haven, CT) in 2022 and 2023. The fair was designed to encourage interaction between medical students, urology residents, and urology faculty by highlighting common urologic procedures and skills. The fair was well received by medical students at all levels of training. Over 2 years, 155 medical students attended, including 67 (43%) first-year and 60 (39%) second-year medical students. Eighty-two medical students completed the survey. An average of 19 attendings, advanced care practitioners and residents attended each event. Of the survey respondents, 42.7% reported prior interest in a surgical specialty but had not considered urology. Students reported increased interest in urology and greater confidence in urologic skills after the event (p < 0.001). We demonstrate that creating a surgical fair in urology is feasible and enhances early exposure and interest in urology. For students who do not pursue urology, the fair provides knowledge of urological pathologies and valuable skills for all physicians.

Addressing Gender Imbalance and Fostering Interest in Urology: Integrating Simulations and AI in a Saudi Arabian Medical School

Addressing Gender Imbalance and Fostering Interest in Urology: Integrating Simulations and AI in a Saudi Arabian Medical School

Factors Influencing Medical Students' Pursuit of Urology: Results From the AUA Census (2019-2021).

Growing interest in urology among medical students highlights the need to understand factors influencing their specialty choice in today's context. We also investigate COVID-19's impact on these factors and any disparities among female and underrepresented in medicine (URiM) students. From 2019 to 2021, the AUA Annual Census survey included medical student-focused questions on demographics, career interests, and decision factors. Responses were analyzed. One hundred ninety-two medical students participated. Thirty-six (24%) identified as female and 19 (13%) as URiM. Common reasons students would choose urology included surgical procedures (93%) and "good lifestyle" among surgical careers (85%), with no differences across gender or URiM status. Compared to pre-COVID (2019), during COVID (2020-2021), a greater proportion of students cited cutting-edge technology (90.1% vs 73.1%, P = .008) and surgical procedures (98.6% vs 87.2%, P = .008) as reasons to choose urology. Reasons for not choosing urology included competitiveness (48%) and poor lifestyle (26%). Female and URiM students expressed concern related to the combined "male dominated/gender discrimination/lack of diversity" aspect (female 33% vs male 3%, P < .001; URiM 25% vs non-URiM 7%, P = .04). The AUA Census survey highlights factors influencing medical students' decisions regarding urology. Interest in procedural and technological aspects grew during COVID. Students expressed concern over the field's competitiveness and poor lifestyle, while also acknowledging that urology offers a favorable lifestyle compared to other surgical careers. Female and URiM students expressed ongoing concerns over the combined aspect of gender discrimination and/or the lack of existing diversity in the field.

MP66-05 FACTORS AFFECTING APPLICATION RATES TO UROLOGY RESIDENCY PROGRAMS

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP66-05 FACTORS AFFECTING APPLICATION RATES TO UROLOGY RESIDENCY PROGRAMS F. Pearce Kudlata, Salil S. Ghamande, William M. Pearson, Luke G. Scanlan, Brittany Ange, John J. de Caro, and Martha K. Terris F. Pearce KudlataF. Pearce Kudlata More articles by this author , Salil S. GhamandeSalil S. Ghamande More articles by this author , William M. PearsonWilliam M. Pearson More articles by this author , Luke G. ScanlanLuke G. Scanlan More articles by this author , Brittany AngeBrittany Ange More articles by this author , John J. de CaroJohn J. de Caro More articles by this author , and Martha K. TerrisMartha K. Terris More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003329.05AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Interest in urology has risen sharply in recent years, creating an increasingly competitive match. Many factors attract or repel applicants, but it remains unclear which factors truly affect application rates. This project aimed to elucidate the factors that influence application rates so both urology residency programs and applicants can employ evidence-based strategies to increase their number of applicants and odds of acceptance, respectively. METHODS: A list of programs and de-identified applicant data was obtained from the AUA/SAU. Usage analytics from 4/1/19-3/31/22 of identified social media accounts were determined using popsters.com. Program size and rankings were acquired from Doximity, city population was obtained from US census data, and city quality of life (QOL) was retrieved from Niche. Statistics were assessed using Spearman’s rank correlations and Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner multiple comparison tests. RESULTS: Affecting Factors: From 2019-2022, the number of applicants increased with program size and city population (Table 1). Programs with a Twitter presence (90.7%) had significantly more applicants in 2019-2022 than those without (p<.01). The mean number of applicants increased with a program’s Twitter followers, following, and total posts (Table 1). After adjusting for multiple variables, programs in higher research and reputation rank quintiles received more applications over the 4 years (p<.0001). Program size and Twitter activity were significantly correlated with reputation quintile (p<.0001). Non-Affecting Factors: From 2020-2022, program city QOL was not associated with increased applications (Table 1). AUA Section also had no significant impact on applicant numbers (p>.05). There was no significant correlation between YouTube or Instagram activity and applicant numbers (Table 1). CONCLUSIONS: Urology residency programs and student applicants should prioritize medical Twitter activity over other social media platforms. Programs should focus on promoting city population, program size, research, and reputation rather than city QOL or geographical region to attract more applicants. Applicants should spread their applications and preference signals to programs across all rank quintiles to adjust for application numbers and potentially increase their match rate. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e933 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information F. Pearce Kudlata More articles by this author Salil S. Ghamande More articles by this author William M. Pearson More articles by this author Luke G. Scanlan More articles by this author Brittany Ange More articles by this author John J. de Caro More articles by this author Martha K. Terris More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Interview: Timothy Clinton

Interview: Timothy Clinton

Prospective, Randomized Comparative Evaluation of a Novel Hands-On Endourology Training Curriculum

Introduction: The aim of this randomised prospective trial was to evaluate a novel hands-on endourological training programme (HTP) and compare it to the standard endourological colloquium (SC). Methods: A new HTP was created based on a sequence of theoretical, video-based, and practical elements emphasising contemporary teaching methods. An existing SC in which live endourological operations were attended served as a comparison. Medical students were enrolled in a ratio of 1:2 (SC:HTP). Objective knowledge questionnaires (5 questions, open answers) and subjective Likert-type questionnaires (rating 1–3 vs. 4–5) were used for evaluation. Primary endpoint was urological knowledge transfer; secondary endpoints were learning effects, progression, and urological interest. Results: 167 students (SC n = 52, HTP n = 115) were included. The knowledge assessment showed a significant increase in knowledge transfer benefitting the HTP on all 5 surveyed items (mean: n = 4/5/4/3/2 vs. n = 2/3/1/1, p < 0.0001). Interest and duration of the course were rated significantly more positively by HTP students (100.0/95.0% vs. 85.0/70.0%, p < 0.0001). The HTP students were significantly more confident in performing a cystoscopy independently (HTP 43.5% vs. SC 11.5%, p < 0.0001) and significantly claimed more often to have gained interdisciplinary and urological skills during the course (HTP 90.0/96.5% vs. SC 23.1/82.7%, p < 0.0001/p = 0.003). HTP students were also more likely to take the course again (HTP 98.2% vs. SC 59.6%, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Modifying endourological teaching towards hands-on teaching resulted in stronger course interest, greater confidence regarding endourologic procedures, and significantly increased urologic knowledge transfer.

The Fate of the Unmatched Urology Applicant

ObjectiveTo determine the outcomes and eventual career paths for unmatched applicants by evaluating a historical cohort of unmatched applicants in the Urology Match. MethodsThe 2008-2014 AUA Match lists were obtained from the Society of Academic Urologists and 730 unique applicants were identified with at least one unmatched result. Additional information such as preliminary training and eventual specialty choice were obtained from publicly available sources. Comparative analysis with univariable and multivariable analysis was performed between eventual urologists and those who chose alternative career paths. ResultsOverall, 43.5% (318/730) of unmatched urology applicants subsequently continued their interest in Urology and 77.4% (246/317) of initially unsuccessful applicants eventually became urologists. Males (80.9%, P = .01), Doctor of Osteopathy (DO) degree (62.5%, P = <.001), and those undergoing a research year compared to a preliminary surgery year (85.2% vs 72.0% respectively, P = .047) had an increased likelihood of successfully becoming a urologist. The most common alternative specialty choices were Internal Medicine (13.8%), General Surgery (12.9%) and Anesthesiology (11.9%). ConclusionUrology is a competitive surgical sub-specialty. Surprisingly, approximately 3 in 4 unmatched urology applicants who continue their interest in urology will eventually obtain a residency position. However, only 33.7% of initially unmatched students ultimately became urologists. Unmatched applicants have several viable pathways to obtain a urological residency position. Male gender, a DO degree, and a research year are associated with successfully obtaining a urology residency position.

MP12-12 CORRELATES OF UNDERREPRESENTED MEDICAL STUDENTS' INTEREST IN AND DECISION TO PURSUE UROLOGY

You have accessJournal of UrologyEducation Research II (MP12)1 Sep 2021MP12-12 CORRELATES OF UNDERREPRESENTED MEDICAL STUDENTS' INTEREST IN AND DECISION TO PURSUE UROLOGY Efe Ghanney Simons, Kassandra Zaila, Natalia Garcia Peñaloza, Serena Does, Samuel Washington, Tracy Downs, and Christopher Saigal Efe Ghanney SimonsEfe Ghanney Simons More articles by this author , Kassandra ZailaKassandra Zaila More articles by this author , Natalia Garcia PeñalozaNatalia Garcia Peñaloza More articles by this author , Serena DoesSerena Does More articles by this author , Samuel WashingtonSamuel Washington More articles by this author , Tracy DownsTracy Downs More articles by this author , and Christopher SaigalChristopher Saigal More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001985.12AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Early sustained exposure, mentorship, and acquisition of clinical skills increase medical students’ intentions to pursue urology. The current work is the first to examine potential racial and ethnic differences in how these factors shape Under-Represented in Medicine (URM) medical students’ interest in urology. METHODS: All medical students at UCLA were surveyed using an instrument adapted from prior work regarding specialty selection by medical students. We defined URM as those students who identified as Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, Native American/Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses were performed to compare factors that positively or negatively influence interest in urology across race/ethnicity. Logistic regression was used to determine differences in level of interest in urology across race. RESULTS: We sent surveys to all 804 medical students, and received 394 responses (49%). 123 participants (28%) met criteria for URM. Mentorship (p=0.0186) and access to underserved patient populations/patient diversity (p <0.0001) were considered ‘extremely important’ when choosing a residency specialty to pursue for Black and Latinx students compared to Asian and White students. Black and Latinx students who reported having limited/relatively low interest in urology attributed it to having no role models in urology at approximately twice the rate compared to Asian and White students. Race/ethnicity was shown to be a significant contributing factor to students’ perception of urology as a good fit (p <0.0001) while gender identity had no influence (p=0.1736). After adjusting for multiple covariates, including perceived “fit” and access to role models, level of interest in urology and planning to pursue a career in urology was not significantly associated with race. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant interest among URM students in pursuing a career in urology, many of these students lack role models and are encouraged to pursue less competitive fields, which may impact the recruitment of URM students into urology. Addressing these factors will be critical to diversifying our specialty to better meet the needs of our patient population. Source of Funding: Office of the Vice Dean for Education and Executive Director of the DGSOM AntiRacism Roadmap © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e192-e193 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Efe Ghanney Simons More articles by this author Kassandra Zaila More articles by this author Natalia Garcia Peñaloza More articles by this author Serena Does More articles by this author Samuel Washington More articles by this author Tracy Downs More articles by this author Christopher Saigal More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...

MP12-15 THE ACADEMIC FRONT LINE: EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF ANTI-RACISM SERVICE ON BLACK MEDICAL STUDENTS PURSING UROLOGY AND SURGICAL SPECIALTIES

You have accessJournal of UrologyEducation Research II (MP12)1 Sep 2021MP12-15 THE ACADEMIC FRONT LINE: EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF ANTI-RACISM SERVICE ON BLACK MEDICAL STUDENTS PURSING UROLOGY AND SURGICAL SPECIALTIES Cheyenne Williams, Tasha Posid, Alicia Scimeca, Dinah Diab, and Cheryl Lee Cheyenne WilliamsCheyenne Williams More articles by this author , Tasha PosidTasha Posid More articles by this author , Alicia ScimecaAlicia Scimeca More articles by this author , Dinah DiabDinah Diab More articles by this author , and Cheryl LeeCheryl Lee More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001985.15AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Historically, underrepresented physicians shoulder disproportionate academic service related to diversity and inclusion (DI) initiatives, but this is not well-reported among students. As racial representation among urology trainees continues to lag behind other specialties, it is critical to understand competing interests experienced by underrepresented minority medical students and how this may impact their academic trajectories. We analyzed the perceived impact of DI service following the summer 2020 movements for racial justice on Black medical students interested in urology and surgical specialties. METHODS: A 39-item survey was distributed between August 2020-November 2020 to Student National Medical Association, a Black medical student organization. Survey items measured specialty interest, a validated racial discrimination score, time commitments to academic and DI efforts before vs after June 2020, and perceived impact of DI service on student wellness and academic performance. Survey responses were compared between students interested in urology vs. other surgical fields and all surgical fields vs. non-surgical fields. RESULTS: We evaluated surveys of 400 students from 105 medical schools. Participants were 53% female, 97.2% Black, and had a mean age of 24.6 years. 29.6% (118/400) of students indicated interested in surgical specialties, with 14.7% (17/118) of students reporting interest in urology. Responses from students pursuing urology were comparable to those of students pursuing other surgical fields. Students interested in surgical specialties more frequently reported that participation in DI activities had a negative impact on their academic performance and said that it prevented them from pursuing other, non-DI involvement (p=0.003) (Table 1). CONCLUSIONS: Black medical students are heavily engaged in institutional service for racial justice. This service has a more negative perceived impact on the academic performance of Black students pursuing urology and surgical specialties. As we seek to recruit a diverse urology workforce, these results warrant exploration of interventions to acknowledge and reward DI service and ultimately ameliorate the “minority tax” on Black trainees. Source of Funding: N/A © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e194-e194 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Cheyenne Williams More articles by this author Tasha Posid More articles by this author Alicia Scimeca More articles by this author Dinah Diab More articles by this author Cheryl Lee More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...

MP12-06 CHARACTERISTICS AND OUTCOMES OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS IN THE 2021 UROLOGY MATCH

You have accessJournal of UrologyEducation Research II (MP12)1 Sep 2021MP12-06 CHARACTERISTICS AND OUTCOMES OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS IN THE 2021 UROLOGY MATCH Trevor C. Hunt, Spencer H. Bell, Alberto A. Castro Bigalli, and Joshua Randolph Trevor C. HuntTrevor C. Hunt More articles by this author , Spencer H. BellSpencer H. Bell More articles by this author , Alberto A. Castro BigalliAlberto A. Castro Bigalli More articles by this author , and Joshua RandolphJoshua Randolph More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001985.06AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Urology is historically a highly selective residency, and the 2021 urology match rate of 74% was the lowest in 5 years. It is unclear whether this is a result of COVID-related disruptions or is due to other factors such as increased interest in urology. Only 34% of applicants surveyed preferred virtual interviews, and many expressed concerns about match outcomes in the months prior to it. Unfortunately, applicant data are scarce compared to those published by other specialties. Thus, our aim was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of recently matched urology applicants. METHODS: The popular Urology Match Google spreadsheet was accessed in February 2021 and reviewed to summarize anonymous, crowdsourced, self-reported data for matched applicants, including a complete match list for all residency programs. Results were compared to historical data published by the AUA. RESULTS: Of 198 matched applicants with data, 64 (18%) matched at their home program while 32 (9%) matched where they completed an away rotation. Six of 143 (4%) programs matched all home students. Of 83 matched applicants with data, 73 (88%) were US allopathic seniors, 8 (10%) were osteopaths, 2 were foreign grads, and 20% had no home residency program. Additional data are displayed in the Table. USMLE scores were consistent with prior reports and >70% sent Step 2 CK scores to programs. Most matched applicants were in the top class quartile, with 39% earning AOA status. On average, matched applicants had 4 published articles and 9 other research items. They completed 2 urology sub-internships at home or away sites and applied to 80 programs. Matched applicants received 19 interviews, 2-3 being from the waitlist, and attended and ranked 15. Over half matched in their top 2 choices with 83% in their top 5. 11% matched from a waitlist interview and 21% matched at a program ranked lower than their home/away rotation sites. CONCLUSIONS: In an unprecedented academic year and application cycle, matched urology applicants remained highly competitive and obtained their desired programs even while completing fewer away rotations. Interview metrics were not notably higher than in prior years, despite concerns of virtual interviews leading to inflation and hoarding. A significant minority matched from the waitlist, lending support to the new interview invitation process’s utility. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e190-e190 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Trevor C. Hunt More articles by this author Spencer H. Bell More articles by this author Alberto A. Castro Bigalli More articles by this author Joshua Randolph More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...

HF02-11 DR. CLYDE LEROY DEMING: VISIONARY DURING A TURBULENT TIME

You have accessJournal of UrologyHistory of Urology Forum II (HF02)1 Sep 2021HF02-11 DR. CLYDE LEROY DEMING: VISIONARY DURING A TURBULENT TIME Soum Lokeshwar, Jamil Syed, Jay Amin, Christine Merenda, Michael Leapman, and Robert Weiss Soum LokeshwarSoum Lokeshwar More articles by this author , Jamil SyedJamil Syed More articles by this author , Jay AminJay Amin More articles by this author , Christine MerendaChristine Merenda More articles by this author , Michael LeapmanMichael Leapman More articles by this author , and Robert WeissRobert Weiss More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001993.11AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The field of Urology, after WWII, in need of strong leadership elected Dr. Clyde Leroy Deming, as its 40th president of the AUA in 1946. His vision was crucial in the organization of modern urology. The objective of this study is to highlight the life and vision of Dr. Deming. METHODS: Sources from journals through PubMed, Medline, and Scopus and historical archives through the Yale Medical Library were analyzed for the contributions of Dr. Deming. RESULTS: Born in August 1885 in Cornish, NH, Dr. Deming attended Bowdoin College and then Yale Medical School, graduating cum laude in 1915. As an intern in the New Haven Hospital, he trained as the first resident surgeon at Yale. With an interest in urology, he apprenticed for two years with Dr. Hugh Hampton Young at Johns Hopkins. With the expanding niche for urology, Dr. Deming established the Section of Urology at Yale and served as the Chief of Urology from 1921-1954. He performed >3000 perineal prostatectomies, developed the “Deming Nephropexy”, studied hormonal therapy for urogenital cancers, and with his associate Dr. Harry S. N. Greene performed the heterologous transplantation of a human bladder papilloma into a guinea pig’s eye. Dr. Deming authored over 100 scientific papers.Dr. Deming was elected AUA President in 1946. It was a turbulent time for Urology with many returning injured soldiers, an influx of war weary surgeons, a need for clinical urologists, and a paucity of urologists involved in the formulation of medical policy. In this tempestuous time, Dr. Deming served as a visionary for the future of Urology. In his Presidential address in July 1946, he laid out the plans for the future of urology. He defined the next phase of urology as “Progress”. In his mind, to better serve patients, urologists had to unify to grow and standardize their practice. He cited the scarcity of state meetings and urological associations and urged urologists to return to their communities to improve urologic practice and to educate budding urologists. He concluded that the practice of urology was ready to take its place in every community.Dr. Deming served as president of the American Association of Genito-Urinary Surgeons in 1948. He continued to practice urology and serve his community through organizations and his church. He died in November 1969 in New Haven CT. CONCLUSIONS: Today, 75 years after the speech calling for structure within urology, there is national and state urological structure and advocacy. Urologic specialists practice in every community and formal guidelines for urology practice have been implemented. The legacy of “Progress” outlined by Dr. Deming lives on. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e240-e241 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Soum Lokeshwar More articles by this author Jamil Syed More articles by this author Jay Amin More articles by this author Christine Merenda More articles by this author Michael Leapman More articles by this author Robert Weiss More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...

Defining the Variance: The Current State of Female and URM Concordance of Urology Resident Workforce to the General U.S. Population

ObjectiveTo compare the current representation of women and underrepresented minorities in medicine (URM) of the urologic resident workforce to the general U.S. population. Materials and MethodsData on current gender and racial distribution of U.S. urology residents was obtained from the 2019-2020 ACGME Data Resource Book and compared to the projected 2019 U.S. population as reported in the U.S. Census data. In this study, URM status included Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American/Alaskan, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander and Other. For each gender and race/ethnicity, the percent differences in representation were calculated by subtracting the frequency in the general U.S. population from that of the urology resident workforce and two sample z-tests were performed. Results1734 urology residents were identified in 2019-2020, of which 471 (27.2%) were female and 258 (14.9%) were URM. Two sample z-tests revealed a significantly lower representation in urologic residency programs for women (-23.6%, P-value < .05) and URMs (-19.1%, P-value < .05). Race/ethnicity subgroup analyses revealed underrepresentation of Black/African American (-9.7%, P-value < .05), Hispanic/Latino (-14.2%, P-value < .05), Native American/Alaskan (-1.1%, P-value < .05). ConclusionWomen and URMs continue to be significantly underrepresented in urology residency relative to the general U.S. population. Further study should better understand barriers to entering the urologic workforce and identify strategies to encourage interest in urology among female and URM prospective trainees.

Impact of Early Exposure to Simulation Program on Undergraduate Medical Students' Interest in Urology.

Background:Urological education is as important as surgical training for undergraduates. However, students in undergraduate medical schools have less exposure to urology as their curriculum focuses more on clinical skills, particularly community-based healthcare for a super-aging society. This study aimed to evaluate whether urology-related hands-on training could increase the interest of undergraduate medical students in urology.Methods:A 1-day elective program in urological surgery at the University of Tsukuba, particularly in robotic, laparoscopic, and endoscopic surgeries, was offered to 85 fourth-year medical students from 2018 to 2020, prior to their clinical clerkship. The average age of the participants was 22 (range: 21-25) years. We used a scoring system that comprised 1-5 Likert-type items to assess training activity, interest in surgery, and interest in urology before and after the course.Results:Before attending the program, the average scores of interest in urology were 3.53 in 2018, 3.15 in 2019, and 3.00 in 2020. The scores in surgery increased after the program; however, this was not significantly different from scores prior to the program. However, the average interest scores in urology were significantly increased to 3.91 ± 0.63 (P < .05), 3.88 ± 0.58 (P < .01), and 4.00 ± 0.61 (P < 0.01) in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively. Total likely scores of this program in 2018, 2019, and 2020 were 4.59, 4.76, and 4.88, respectively, indicating a motivation to study surgery and urology during clinical clerkship.Conclusions:Urological hands-on training facilitated interest in urology in medical students prior to their clinical clerkship.

Strategies to Encourage Medical Student Interest in Urology.

Purpose of ReviewUrology residency positions have steadily increased but applications have remained stagnant. This is an alarming trend given the aging general population and thus increased need for urologists. The purpose of this review is to describe barriers and suggest strategies to encourage medical students to pursue urology.Recent FindingsBarriers to interest in urology include educational factors, such as timing of exposure to urology in medical school, USMLE scores, research experience, and deciding in time for an early match, as well as socioeconomic barriers, such as cost, being underrepresented in medicine, and gender. Steps the urological community can take include increasing involvement in medical school curricula, increasing faculty mentor availability, and broadening students’ range of urological experiences.SummaryStrategies to encourage interest in urology fall into three categories: creating interest, supporting interest, and removing barriers for students considering urology. Ultimately, the goal is to garner excellent residents in a field that must expand to meet the needs of a growing and aging population.

814 - John Cridlan Barrett VC – a hero with an interest in urology

814 - John Cridlan Barrett VC – a hero with an interest in urology

Guidelines for Reporting of Figures and Tables for Clinical Research in Urology

In an effort to improve the presentation of and information within tables and figures in clinical urology research, we propose a set of appropriate guidelines. We introduce six principles: (1) include graphs only if they improve the reader’s ability to understand the study findings; (2) think through how a graph might best convey information, do not just select a graph from preselected options on statistical software; (3) do not use graphs to replace reporting key numbers in the text of a paper; (4) graphs should give an immediate visual impression of the data; (5) make it beautiful; and (6) make the labels and legend clear and complete. We present a list of quick “dos and don’ts” for both tables and figures. Investigators should feel free to break any of the guidelines if it would result in a beautiful figure or a clear table that communicates data effectively. That said, we believe that the quality of tables and figures in the medical literature would improve if these guidelines were to be followed. Patient summaryA set of guidelines were developed for presenting figures and tables in urology research. The guidelines were developed by a broad group of statistical experts with special interest in urology.

Guidelines for Reporting of Figures and Tables for Clinical Research in Urology.

In an effort to improve the presentation of and information within tables and figures in clinical urology research, we propose a set of appropriate guidelines. We introduce six principles: (1) include graphs only if they improve the reader's ability to understand the study findings; (2) think through how a graph might best convey information, do not just select a graph from preselected options on statistical software; (3) do not use graphs to replace reporting key numbers in the text of a paper; (4) graphs should give an immediate visual impression of the data; (5) make it beautiful; and (6) make the labels and legend clear and complete. We present a list of quick "dos and don'ts" for both tables and figures. Investigators should feel free to break any of the guidelines if it would result in a beautiful figure or a clear table that communicates data effectively. That said, we believe that the quality of tables and figures in the medical literature would improve if these guidelines were to be followed. Patient summary: A set of guidelines were developed for presenting figures and tables in urology research. The guidelines were developed by a broad group of statistical experts with special interest in urology.

Guidelines for Reporting of Figures and Tables for Clinical Research in Urology

In an effort to improve the presentation of and information within tables and figures in clinical urology research, we propose a set of appropriate guidelines. We introduce 6 principles (1) include graphs only if they improve the reader's ability to understand the study findings; (2) think through how a graph might best convey information, do not just select a graph from preselected options on statistical software; (3) do not use graphs to replace reporting key numbers in the text of a paper; (4) graphs should give an immediate visual impression of the data; (5) make it beautiful; and (6) make the labels and legend clear and complete. We present a list of quick “dos and don'ts” for both tables and figures. Investigators should feel free to break any of the guidelines if it would result in a beautiful figure or a clear table that communicates data effectively. That said, we believe that the quality of tables and figures in the medical literature would improve if these guidelines were to be followed. Patient summaryA set of guidelines were developed for presenting figures and tables in urology research. The guidelines were developed by a broad group of statistical experts with special interest in urology.

The Impact of Early Exposure to Urology: Evaluation of an Introductory Preclinical Course.

Early exposure in medical school can increase student interest in urology. The majority of medical students graduate without completing a clinical rotation in this field. The primary objectives of our study were to increase exposure to urology and to facilitate interactions between preclinical students and department faculty. A 7-week urology curriculum consisting of a weekly 1-hour class was introduced into the M.D. curriculum. Lectures were taught by faculty, fellows and resident physicians, and focused on the professional trajectory of the speaker, a career in urology, information on urological subspecialties and teaching points relevant to each topic. Pre/post surveys were administered to evaluate the effectiveness of the course. A total of 16 students enrolled in the course. Before this course the majority of students had less than 1 hour of teaching focused on urological topics. Informal exposure to urology was similar between preclinical students and graduating fourth year medical students (p >0.05). Post-course surveys showed that students had increased exposure to urology, greater opportunity to interact with residents, fellows and faculty, and overall they were satisfied with their course experience. Students who attended 4 or more courses reported they understood what a career in urology entails and had acquired the necessary information to decide whether to enroll in a clinical rotation in urology. This course increased exposure to urology among preclinical students and is a feasible addition to a standard medical school curriculum. Future studies will follow these students longitudinally and determine if this course increases student enrollment in urological clinical rotations and increases urology residency applications.