ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2018
Landing a GI Fellowship: The Match and the Map.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Intern to Fellow: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends Among Matched Gastroenterology Fellows.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Gastroenterology Fellowship Applicants' Perspectives on GI Program Preferences.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021Article
- Gastroenterology Fellowship Match: An Inside Look.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBased on the location of training programs, internal applicants and local applicants were defined as applicants who attended the same training institution and trained in local areas (i.e., state, division, and region), respectively. While being an internal applicant does influence fellowship matching success for some specialties, gastroenterology fellowship program directors do not rank this consideration in the top half of their priority list. There is no published evidence about the frequency that internal applicants and local applicants match in US gastroenterology training program.
aimTo find the proportion of gastroenterologists who were internal applicants and local applicants during the graduation years 2010-2019.
methodsOnline search in Doximity was conducted to obtain postgraduate training information of gastroenterologists with the graduation years 2010-2019. Programs were classified into nine divisions and four regions per United States Census Bureau. We used confidence level 95% and margin of error 2% to calculate sample size.
resultsIn total, 1489 physicians (N = 1489) were included. The proportion of internal applicants was 39.56% of the sample size. The proportions of gastroenterologists who attended IM residency programs in the same state, same division, and same region were 53.06, 60.64, and 71.93%, respectively.
conclusionA large proportion of gastroenterologists were either internal applicants or local applicants. Further research is necessary to better understand the reasons behind these trends and whether the bias against external or geographically distant fellowship candidates is intended or unintended, as these data have broad implications for GI fellowship candidate residency program and geography choices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29080995What 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.