ArticleAEM education and training2021
The standardized letter of evaluation in emergency medicine: Are the qualifications useful?
Article in AEM education and training, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Prevalence and characteristics of group standardized letters of evaluation in emergency medicine: A cross-sectional observational study.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- The standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) in emergency medicine: The internal validity of the SLOE 2.0.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- Automated abstraction of information from standard letters of evaluation: A resource for file review and research.AEM education and training · 2024Article
- Ethnic and Racial Differences in Ratings in the Medical Student Standardized Letters of Evaluation (SLOE).Journal of graduate medical education · 2022Article
- Gender differences in emergency medicine standardized letters of evaluation.AEM education and training · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) in emergency medicine (EM) is a widely used metric for determining interview invitations and ranking of candidates. Previous research has questioned the validity of certain sections of the SLOE. However, there remains a paucity of literature on the qualifications for EM section, which evaluates seven attributes of applicants. The aim of this study was to determine the correlation between the qualifications questions and grades, global assessment, and anticipated rank list position for EM applicants.
methodsA multi-institutional cross-sectional study was performed using SLOEs from applicants to three geographically distinct U.S. EM residency programs during the 2019-2020 application cycle. We abstracted EM rotation grade, qualifications scores, global assessment, and anticipated rank list position from the SLOEs. A Spearman correlation was calculated between each of the qualifications scores and the applicant's grades, global assessment, and anticipated rank list position in a pairwise fashion.
resultsIn total, 2,106 unique applicants (4,939 SLOEs) were included. Of the seven qualifications for EM questions, three were moderately to strongly correlated with global assessment and anticipated rank list position: "ability to develop and justify an appropriate differential and a cohesive treatment plan" (ρ = 0.65 and ρ = 0.63, respectively; p < 0.001), "how much guidance do you predict this applicant will need during residency?" (ρ = 0.68 and ρ = 0.68, respectively; p < 0.001), and "what is your prediction of success for the applicant?" (ρ = 0.69 and ρ = 0.69, respectively; p < 0.001). There was no strong correlation between the seven qualifications and grades.
conclusionsThere was a moderate to strong correlation between three of seven qualifications for EM questions (ability to develop and justify a differential and develop a cohesive plan, anticipated need for the amount of guidance, and prediction of success) with both global assessment and anticipated rank list position, suggesting that these qualifications may provide the most useful data to residency selection while some of the other factors may not be needed.
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.