A lack of standardization across urology fellowship program websites is hurting applicants

Abstract Background As senior urology residents explore potential fellowship opportunities, they often turn to the official websites of accredited fellowship programs. However, the information available on these websites is often inconsistent and lacking. Methods The list of accredited fellowship programs on each subspecialty society's official website was utilized to document all available programs (i.e., Endourological Society—EUS; Society of Genitourinary Reconstructive Surgeons—GURS; Male Infertility/Andrology—MIA; Societies for Pediatric Urology—SPU; Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction—SUFU; Society of Urologic Oncology—SUO). Fifteen pre‐specified factors were assessed on each of the websites in September 2024. χ 2 tests and z ‐scores were calculated. Results There were 140 total fellowship training programs. Information on research opportunities and current faculty profiles was widely available (both 88.6% overall). However, information pertaining to wellness initiatives (7.1% overall) and salary/benefits (13.6% overall) were not commonly included. SUO and SPU programs were more likely to feature information about research opportunities than SUFU and GURS programs. SPU websites were more likely than all others to feature information regarding training sites. Additionally, SUO websites were more likely to contain profiles on current fellows than all but SUFU websites. Conclusion A significant lack of standardization exists among both various urology subspecialties' websites and the websites of individual programs within a single subspecialty. Standardization of these websites would allow applicants to make better, more informed decisions regarding where to complete fellowship training.