Exploring the validity and reliability of neurosurgery residency program rankings: a quantitative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationships between Doximity rankings (Doximity, Inc.) of residency programs and two new ranking systems based on publication rates and academic pursuits.

METHODS: We collected data on 550 neurosurgery graduates over 3 years. We analyzed the median number of published manuscripts per resident and the percentage of residents pursuing academic careers and compared them across the Doximity Research Productivity and Reputation Rankings. We used logistic regression to evaluate the relationships among the rankings, publication rates, and academic pursuits.

RESULTS: Neurosurgery residents published a median of 10 manuscripts per person (IQR: 6-17), and 50% (IQR: 33%-67%) of residents in a given program pursued an academic career. The distributions of the median number of published manuscripts across the Doximity Research Productivity Ranking and the Doximity Reputation Ranking tiers differed significantly (all p < 0.001). Similarly, the distribution of the percentage of residents pursuing an academic career across both published Doximity ranking systems' tiers differed significantly (all p = 0.02). Moreover, we found moderate agreement between the two Doximity rankings, fair agreement between the publication and the other three rankings, and slight agreement between the academic pursuit and the Doximity rankings.

CONCLUSIONS: We introduced two new methods to rank residency programs based on the number of graduates pursuing an academic position and the median number of published manuscripts per resident. By taking a comprehensive approach, neurosurgery applicants can ensure that they select a residency program that meets their needs and offers them the best opportunity for success.