Vutukuri Rithvik, White Ryan C, Saraf Shreya M, Mulcahey Mary K
Orthopaedic Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, USA.
Orthopaedic Surgery, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University, Chicago, USA.
Cureus. 2025 Mar 31;17(3):e81511. doi: 10.7759/cureus.81511. eCollection 2025 Mar.
The integrity of applications submitted by medical students applying for orthopaedic surgery residency has been a topic of concern within the medical community in recent years. Although research misrepresentation is a recognized issue, there is limited information on how orthopaedic surgery residency programs verify the research contributions listed by medical students during the application process. The purpose of this study is to identify if and how orthopaedic surgery residency programs verify the research section of an application.
A 28-question anonymous survey was distributed in March 2024 to program directors, assistant program directors, and research directors in the department of orthopaedic surgery at participating Collaborative Orthopaedic Educational Research Group (COERG) programs. The survey was open for three weeks and assessed the respondents' background, their application review practices, and the reasoning behind these practices.
There were a total of 10 respondents: eight identified as male (80%), one identified as female (10%), and one identified as a transgender female (10%). Six of 10 (60%) respondents did not verify research listed on orthopaedic surgery residency applications. Only three (30%) verified both posters and publications, and one (10%) participant verified publications only. Of those who verified research, the most common verification process was both checking PubMed/similar platforms (three, 33%) and contacting research mentors or collaborators (three, 33%). Six (60%) respondents were at least somewhat concerned with research misrepresentation, and eight (80%) felt that verification of research on Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) applications should be standard practice. The primary reason cited by programs that did not verify research was the significant time investment required to establish a consistent process, accounting for eight (47%) responses. Four (40%) respondents felt that incorporating research verification into the application review process would extend each review by 31 minutes to an hour.
Orthopaedic surgery residency programs are generally concerned with research misrepresentation among applicants; however, most programs are not yet actively verifying research reported in the ERAS application. The primary concern among programs is the time required for verification. There is a need for the creation of standardized research verification practices that can be adopted by all programs. Programs may consider implementing more efficient verification strategies or prioritizing confirmation of an applicant's most significant research achievements to ensure a fair and accurate evaluation of applicants.
近年来，申请骨科手术住院医师培训的医学生所提交申请材料的完整性一直是医学界关注的话题。尽管研究造假是一个公认的问题，但关于骨科手术住院医师培训项目在申请过程中如何核实医学生列出的研究贡献的信息却很有限。本研究的目的是确定骨科手术住院医师培训项目是否以及如何核实申请中的研究部分。
2024年3月，向参与合作骨科教育研究组（COERG）项目的骨科手术科室的项目主任、助理项目主任和研究主任发放了一份包含28个问题的匿名调查问卷。该调查开放三周，评估了受访者的背景、他们的申请审核做法以及这些做法背后的理由。
共有10名受访者：8人认定为男性（80%），1人认定为女性（10%），1人认定为跨性别女性（10%）。10名受访者中有6人（60%）未核实骨科手术住院医师培训申请中列出的研究内容。只有3人（30%）同时核实了海报和出版物，1名参与者（10%）只核实了出版物。在那些核实研究的人中，最常见的核实过程是同时检查PubMed/类似平台（3人，33%）和联系研究导师或合作者（3人，33%）。6名受访者（60%）至少有点担心研究造假，8人（80%）认为在电子住院医师申请服务（ERAS）申请中核实研究应该成为标准做法。未核实研究的项目给出的主要原因是建立一个一致的流程需要投入大量时间，8人（47%）给出了这样的回答。4名受访者（40%）认为将研究核实纳入申请审核流程会使每次审核延长31分钟到1小时。
骨科手术住院医师培训项目普遍担心申请者中的研究造假问题；然而，大多数项目尚未积极核实ERAS申请中报告的研究内容。项目的主要担忧是核实所需的时间。需要创建所有项目都能采用的标准化研究核实做法。项目可以考虑实施更有效的核实策略，或者优先确认申请者最重要的研究成果，以确保对申请者进行公平、准确的评估。
