ArticleFemale pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery2021
Virtual Interviews During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of Applicants to Fellowships in Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery.
Article in Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery, 2021. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Online interviews for qualitative health research in Africa: a scoping review.International health · 2024Article
- Virtual Interviews Improve Equity and Wellbeing: Results of a Survey of Applicants to Obstetrics and Gynecology Subspecialty Fellowships.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Virtual Vitreoretinal Surgery Fellowship Interview and Match Experience.Journal of vitreoretinal diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective was to assess female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) fellowship applicants' perspectives on the effectiveness of the virtual interview format for creating their rank lists.
methodsThis was an anonymous internet-based survey study of applicants to the FPMRS fellowships in the United States, conducted from July 21, 2020, to August 5, 2020. A 34-item questionnaire queried applicants on satisfaction with interviews, comfort with creating a rank list and time, and financial cost of interviews. Applicants were invited to complete the survey via standardized emails distributed via the REDCap secure database.
resultsForty-two (56.7%) of 74 applicants completed the survey. The majority of respondents were somewhat satisfied or very satisfied (92.9%) with the virtual interview process and felt comfortable ranking the programs (83.3%). A total of 9.8% of respondents found virtual interviews somewhat or much better than in-person interviews with regards to being informative and helpful, whereas 61% found them to be about the same. A majority (75.6%) found virtual interviews somewhat or much less stressful compared with in-person interviews. The majority (97.5%) spent less than $2,000 during the application process compared with more than $4,000 (87.8%) that they had anticipated spending if the interviews were in person.
conclusionsOur data revealed that FPMRS applicants overall had a positive experience with the virtual interview platform and felt comfortable creating a rank list of programs based on those interviews.
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.