Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34433453›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2021

Virtual obstetrics and gynecology fellowship interviews during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: a survey study.

Alexandra Peyser, Moti Gulersen, Michael Nimaroff, Christine Mullin, Randi H Goldman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Alexandra PeyserDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, North Shore University Hospital - Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, NY, USA. apeyser@northwell.edu.
Moti GulersenDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, North Shore University Hospital - Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, NY, USA.
Michael NimaroffDivision of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, North Shore University Hospital - Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, NY, USA.
Christine MullinDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, North Shore University Hospital - Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, NY, USA.
Randi H GoldmanDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, North Shore University Hospital - Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, all Obstetrics and Gynecology fellowship interviews were held virtually for the 2020 fellowship match cycle. The aim of this study was to describe our initial experience with virtual Obstetrics and Gynecology fellowship interviews and evaluate its effectiveness in assessing candidates.

methodsThis was a cross-sectional survey study that included all interviewing attending physicians and fellows from five Obstetrics and Gynecology subspecialties at a single academic institution following the 2020-2021 fellowship interview season. The survey consisted of 19 questions aimed to evaluate each subspecialty's virtual interview process, including its feasibility and performance in evaluating applicants. The primary outcome was the subjective utility of virtual interviews. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of responses from fellows and attending physicians.

resultsThirty-six attendings and fellows completed the survey (36/53, 68% response rate). Interviewers felt applicants were able to convey themselves adequately during the virtual interview (92%) and the majority (70%) agreed that virtual interviews should be offered in future years. Attending physicians were more likely than fellows to state that the virtual interview process adequately assessed the candidates (Likert Scale Mean: 4.4 vs. 3.8, respectively, p = 0.02). Respondents highlighted decreased cost, time saved, and increased flexibility as benefits to the virtual interview process.

conclusionThe use of virtual interviews provides a favorable method for conducting fellowship interviews and should be considered for use in future application cycles. Most respondents were satisfied with the virtual interview process and found they were an effective tool for evaluating applicants.

Indexed as

COVID-19GynecologyInternship and ResidencyObstetricsCross-Sectional StudiesFellowships and ScholarshipsHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesCOVID-19FellowshipObgynVirtual interviews

Identifiers

PMID34433453
PMCPMC8387093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.