ArticleThe Laryngoscope2016
Standardized letters of recommendation and successful match into otolaryngology.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Value of Medical Student Mentorship in Surgical Specialties.Hawai'i journal of health & social welfare · 2023Article
- Sex bias in letters of recommendation and personal statements for otolaryngology residency.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2022Article
- Everyone Is Awesome: Analyzing Letters of Reference in a General Surgery Residency Selection Process.Journal of graduate medical education · 2020Article
- Evaluating Urology Residency Applications: What Matters Most and What Comes Next?Current urology reports · 2020Review
- Characterization of the 2016-2017 Dermatology Standardized Letter of Recommendation.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2018Article
- Innovation in Resident Selection: Life Without Step 1.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentReview
- Are Standardized Letters of Recommendation in Residency Applications Correlated With Objective Data?Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectives/hypothesisHistorically, narrative letters of recommendation have been utilized in the selection of applicants for otolaryngology residency programs. In the last two application cycles, our specialty adopted a standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR). The intent was to decrease time burden for letter writers and to provide readers with an objective evaluation of applicants. The objective of this study was to determine attributes in the SLOR that correlate with matching into a residency program. STUDY
designWe performed a retrospective study using SLOR, United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) step 1 scores, and matched outcomes of applicants who applied to our institution for the 2013 and 2014 match cycle.
methodsWe included the following variables from the SLOR in the statistical analysis to determine which ones were associated with matching: patient care, medical knowledge, communication skills, procedural skills, research, initiative and drive, commitment to otolaryngology, commitment to academic medicine, match potential, and USMLE1 scores.
resultsWe identified 532 applicants and 963 SLOR. In successful applicants, scores for patient care, medical knowledge, communication skills, initiative and drive, and match potential were statistically higher (P < 0.05). Scores for professionalism, procedural skills, research, commitment to otolaryngology, commitment to academic medicine, and USMLE step 1 scores were not higher among successfully matched applicants.
conclusionAlthough SLOR can save time for letter writers and provide an objective description of applicants, the utility of individual domains within the SLOR is questionable. Additionally, it is concerning that applicants' professionalism and procedural skills are not correlated with matching in our specialty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA. Laryngoscope, 126:1071-1076, 2016.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.