Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34546886›Full record

Observational studyThe western journal of emergency medicine2021

Does the Medical Student Performance Evaluation Change the Decision to Invite Residency Applicants?

Terra N Thimm, Christopher S Kiefer, Mara S Aloi, Moira Davenport, Jared Kilpatrick, Jeffrey S Bush, Lindsey Jennings, Stephen M Davis, Kimberly Quedado, Erica B Shaver

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors.

Terra N ThimmWest Virginia University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Morgantown, West Virginia.
Christopher S KieferWest Virginia University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Morgantown, West Virginia.
Mara S AloiAllegheny General Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Moira DavenportAllegheny General Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jared KilpatrickAllegheny General Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jeffrey S BushMedical University of South Carolina, Department of Emergency Medicine, Charleston, South Carolina.
Lindsey JenningsMedical University of South Carolina, Department of Emergency Medicine, Charleston, South Carolina.
Stephen M DavisWest Virginia University School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy, Management, and Leadership, Morgantown, West Virginia.
Kimberly QuedadoWest Virginia University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Morgantown, West Virginia.
Erica B ShaverWest Virginia University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAlthough emergency medicine (EM) residency program directors (PD) have multiple sources to evaluate each applicant, some programs await the release of the medical student performance evaluation (MSPE) to extend interview offers. While prior studies have demonstrated that MSPE content is variable and selectively positive, no prior work has evaluated the impact of the MSPE on the likelihood to invite (LTI) applicants for a residency interview. This study aimed to evaluate how information in the MSPE impacted LTI, with the hypothesis that changes in LTI would be relatively rare based on MSPE review alone.

methodsWe conducted a prospective, observational study analyzing applications to three EM residency programs during the 2019-2020 match cycle. Reviewers assessed applications and rated the LTI on a five-point Likert scale where LTI was defined as follows: 1 = definitely no; 2 = probably no; 3 = unsure; 4 = probably yes; and 5 = definitely yes. The LTI was recorded before and after MSPE review. A change in LTI was considered meaningful when it changed the overall trajectory of the applicant's likelihood to receive an invitation to interview.

resultsWe reviewed a total of 877 applications with the LTI changing ≥1 point on the Likert scale 160 (18.2%) times. The LTI was meaningfully impacted in a minority of applications - 48 total (5.5 %, p< 0.01) - with only 1 (0.11%) application changing from 1 or 2 (definitely/probably no) to 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes) and 34 (3.8%) changing from 3 (unsure) to 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes). Thirteen (1.5%) applications changed from 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes) to 3 (unsure or probably/definitely no).

conclusionReview of the MSPE resulted in a meaningful change in LTI in only 5.5% of applications. Given the time required for program leadership to review all parts of the variably formatted MSPEs, this finding supports a more efficient application review, where the PD's focus is on succinct and objective aspects of the application, such as the Standardized Letter of Evaluation.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduateInternship and ResidencyAdultEducational MeasurementEmergency MedicineFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesStudents, Medical

Identifiers

PMID34546886
PMCPMC8463047

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.