To determine what factors predict an “excellent” clinical resident and a successful in-service test taker, we analyzed 10 years of urology resident files.\n\nPARTICIPANTS AND STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of 29 urology residents at Washington University graduating from July 2000 to July 2009. Medical student applications and interview evaluations were compared with future performance as a general surgical intern and then as a urology resident,

in terms of clinical performance and in-service examination scores.\n\nRESULTS: Of 29 residents, based on clinical evaluations over 4 years of urology residency, 12 were “excellent,” 17 “average and needing improvement.” “Excellent” residents had higher applicant rank submitted to the “match” (7.2 vs. 12.1, p = 0.04) and better letters of recommendation (3.0 vs. 2.5, 0.018). “Excellent” residents also this website had better evaluations as C59 concentration an intern (3.9 vs 2.7, p < 0.001). “Good” urology in-service examination test takers compared with “below average” test takers noted higher rank on the match list (7.8 vs 12.1, p = 0.04), better quality med school (2.6 vs 2.0;

p = 0.002), higher USMLE scores (92.5 vs 86.6% tile, p = 0.02), American Board of Surgery in-training examination (ABSITE) score (58.6 vs 37.2% tile, p = 0.04), and were more likely to pass the board examination (100% vs 76.9%, p = 0.03). Residents with higher clinical evaluations were also more likely to go into fellowships (83.3% vs 16.2%, OR = 23.3) and academic careers (41.6 vs 11.1%, OR = 5.71).\n\nCONCLUSIONS: Performance as a surgery intern predicts future performance as a GU Resident. “Good” test takers as medical students and as interns continue to test well as GU residents. Early identification, intervention, and mentoring while still an intern

are essential. Selection criteria we currently use to select GU residents are surprisingly predictive. (J Surg 70: 138-143. (C) 2012 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)”
“Immunotherapy with wasp allergen leads to a variety of specific immunological changes. It is unknown, however, whether unspecific effects also occur, and which parameter shifts might indicate Staurosporine supplier treatment success. Therefore, data of patients who had completed immunotherapy with wasp venom were analysed retrospectively for a change in the following parameters after therapy: threshold of skin tests with wasp venom, total and specific serum IgE, specific serum IgG and IgG4, and binding of IgE and IgG4 to major wasp venom allergens. Reactions to field stings were explored. A significant increase in the skin test threshold and a significant decrease in total serum IgE, specific serum IgE and major wasp allergens binding IgE were found. Concentrations of specific serum IgG and IgG4 increased.