ArticleCureus2022
Otolaryngology Residency Match During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Article in Cureus, 2022. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective To review changes made by otolaryngology residency program directors (PDs) during the 2020-2021 National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) match cycle and describe their attitudes toward the 2021-2022 match cycle. Methods Cross-sectional study using an anonymous 31-item online survey in Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) with questions regarding the 2020-2021 NRMP match. This survey was distributed to 125 PDs from Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited otolaryngology residency programs. Results Thirty-three PDs responded (26.4%). Of the PDs, 78.8% had an online info-session prior to the start of the cycle, and 30.3% reported that an increased number of applicants contacted them compared to the prior cycle. There were no changes made in Step 1 criteria (72.7%), and 81.8% reported no changes in interview selection. Of the PDs, 54.5% reported interviewing more candidates. Respondents reported a decreased cancellation rate (66.7%) and cost of recruiting (87.9%); 87.9% said that they did not change the way they developed their rank order list (ROL), and 84.8% reported matching at their usual level compared to prior years. Of the respondents, 42.4% reported making a change that was an overall improvement for their program. Of the PDs, 34.4% were unsure whether they would sustain virtual interviews in 2021-2022, 25% stated that they would not incorporate virtual interviews, and 40.7% stated that they would incorporate a virtual interview in some part of the cycle. Conclusion Otolaryngology PDs approached virtual interviewing in different ways. Despite the changes made, applicants can find comfort in knowing that match outcomes were perceived as typical by a majority of PDs.
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.