ArticleBMC medical education2020
Advising special population emergency medicine residency applicants: a survey of emergency medicine advisors and residency program leadership.
Article in BMC medical education, 2020. 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.
- Differences in Residency Advising and Mentorship for Osteopathic and Allopathic Emergency Medicine Applicants.Cureus · 2026Article
- Prevalence and characteristics of group standardized letters of evaluation in emergency medicine: A cross-sectional observational study.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study was to determine the advising and emergency medicine (EM) residency selection practices for special population applicant groups for whom traditional advice may not apply.
methodsA survey was distributed on the Council of Residency Directors in EM and Clerkship Directors in EM Academy listservs. Multiple choice, Likert-type scale, and fill-in-the-blank questions addressed the average EM applicant and special population groups (osteopathic; international medical graduate (IMG); couples; at-risk; re-applicant; dual-accreditation applicant; and military). Percentages and 95% confidence intervals [CI] were calculated.
resultsOne hundred four surveys were completed. Of respondents involved in the interview process, 2 or more standardized letters of evaluation (SLOEs) were recommended for osteopathic (90.1% [95% CI 84-96]), IMG (82.5% [73-92]), dual-accreditation (46% [19-73]), and average applicants (48.5% [39-58]). Recommendations for numbers of residency applications to submit were 21-30 (50.5% [40.7-60.3]) for the average applicant, 31-40 (41.6% [31.3-51.8]) for osteopathic, and > 50 (50.9% [37.5-64.4]) for IMG. For below-average Step 1 performance, 56.0% [46.3-65.7] were more likely to interview with an average Step 2 score. 88.1% [81.8-94.4] will consider matching an EM-EM couple. The majority were more likely to interview a military applicant with similar competitiveness to a traditional applicant. Respondents felt the best option for re-applicants was to pursue the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) for a preliminary residency position.
conclusionAdvising and residency selection practices for special population applicants differ from those of traditional EM applicants. These data serve as an important foundation for advising these distinct applicant groups in ways that were previously only speculative. While respondents agree on many advising recommendations, outliers exist.
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.