Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 2, 2025
Author Spotlight: Advancing Endoscopic Ossiculoplasty – Techniques, Innovations, and Practical Guidance for Clinical Integration
Published on: January 26, 2024
A Comparison of Otolaryngology Residency Applicants Over Time and to Other Surgical Applicants
Matthew E Lin1, Khush Kharidia2, Deborah Choe1
1Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California Los Angeles California USA.
Objective:
Understand how otolaryngology residency applicant characteristics have changed over time and compare them to those of other surgical subspecialties.
Study Design:
Retrospective analysis of academic, extracurricular, and application data in the Texas Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency databases.
Setting:
Applicants to otolaryngology, neurological surgery, ophthalmology, plastic surgery, urology, and orthopedic surgery applicants from 2019 to 2023.
Methods:
Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon rank sum, Fischer's exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare temporal, match-based, and subspecialty differences in applicant characteristics.
Results:
Across 4 match cycles and 541 otolaryngology applicants, significant differences were found in the average number of honored clerkships per applicant (P = 0.044), the percentage of matched applicants (P = 0.017), and the average number of research experiences (P < 0.001), peer-revied publications (P = 0.002), applied programs (P < 0.001), and interviews received (P = 0.041). Relative to their unmatched counterparts, matched applicants frequently received more interviews, belonged to higher academic quartiles, and were more likely to belong to academic honor societies (all P < 0.05). Matched applicants exhibited significant differences in the number of research experiences (P = 0.002), peer-reviewed publications (P = 0.004), and applied programs across cycles (P < 0.001). Relative to applicants from other surgical subspecialties, otolaryngology applicants exhibited high amounts of extracurricular involvement, were on par in terms of research output, and received a low proportion of interviews despite applying to a high number of programs.
Conclusion:
Matching into otolaryngology has become increasingly competitive and is as competitive as peer surgical subspecialties. Strong academic performance, judicious program signaling, increased research involvement, and holistic factors like letters of recommendation may help applicants successfully match.
