ArticleJPRAS open2022
A Leadership Perspective on the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Residency Application Cycle During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Article in JPRAS open, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of this study was to identify leadership perspective on the impact of COVID-19 Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) residency application cycle in 2020 and its future implications. Methods: A survey was sent to residency program leaders (RPL), consisting of program directors and division chiefs/chairs. The survey was sent weekly for 4 weeks and remained open for 28 days. Results: A total of 156 PRS RPL were emailed. Response rate was 24% (38/156). A total of 68% were division chiefs/chairs, and 42% were program directors. Ten percent were both division chiefs/chairs and program directors. Among them, 78% were male. Eighty-seven percent of RPLs reported changes in the number of away rotations, of which 91% reported less away rotations. Only 27% of programs provided virtual away rotations (VAR), and 88% of RPLs were not comfortable writing letters of recommendation after VARs. Hundred percent of cases reported that VARs influenced whether an applicant received an interview. A total of 24 RPLs (63%) reported no changes in how they viewed applications due to the pandemic. However, 5 (13%) reported USMLE scores were more important, 4 (11%) reported research was more important, and 4 (11%) reported LORs were more important. Sixty-six percent did not feel they relied heavily on home institution candidates. Seventy-six percent found virtual interviews to be effective in evaluating applicants, and 71% reported they would add virtual interviews in future interviews. Conclusions: During the 2020-2021 PRS residency application cycle, fewer away rotations were offered, and formerly in-person activities were moved to virtual platforms. Virtual activities caused difficulty assessing candidates for many residency programs.
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.