ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
The Influence of Applicant and Reviewer Gender on Resident Selection for Internal Medicine.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile gender bias in medicine, including physician training, has been well described, less is known about gender bias in the selection process for post graduate residency training programs. This analysis reviews the potential role of gender on resident selection for an internal medicine residency program.
methodsFile review and interview overall and component scores were analyzed based on the gender of the applicant. File review scores were further analyzed based on the reviewer's gender.
resultsWomen applicants scored higher than men applicants on their file review. There were no differences in any one component score except for leadership in art. Women file reviewers scored applicants higher than men file reviewers, but there was no difference between gender scores. There was no difference in overall or component interview scores between men or women applicants. Scoring did not impact the expected rank performance of applicants based on gender at any stage of the selection process.
conclusionsWhile higher scores were observed in women applicants upon their file review, and women reviewers provided higher file review scores, this did not appear to impact the expected number of women and men applicants at each stage of the applicant process. This suggests a potential lack of gender bias at these stages of applicant selection.
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.