ArticleAmerican journal of surgery2023
Participant perspectives on a department of surgery faculty mentoring program.
Article in American journal of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proctoring as advanced surgical learning: the proctor's perspective in robotic surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Interventions designed to increase scholarly activity and achieve promotion among primarily junior clinical faculty in the United States: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Virtual Team-Based Mentorship: Fostering Knowledge Acquisition, Career Advancement, and Connectedness.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2025Article
- The underrepresentation of women in academic surgery in China.American journal of surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMentorship in academic medicine serves to promote career advancement and job satisfaction. This study was to evaluate the initial results of a faculty mentorship program in an academic Department of Surgery.
methodsA faculty mentorship program was initiated in July 2015 with 63 participants. Junior faculty mentees (n = 35) were assigned senior faculty mentors (n = 28). After three years, an electronic survey was administered and the results analyzed.
resultsResponse rate was 67% (n = 42). 34 (81%) respondents had met with their mentor/mentee at least once. Topics discussed included: research (76%), leadership (52%), work-life balance (45%), and promotion (5%). Mentees endorsed achieving promotion (n = 2), increasing research productivity (n = 2), and obtaining national committee positions (n = 2). 61% of mentors and 53% of mentees felt they benefitted personally from the program. Actionable improvements to the mentorship program were identified including more thoughtful pairing of mentors and mentees with similar research interests.
conclusionsParticipants felt the mentorship program was beneficial. Further investigation regarding the optimization of the mentor-mentee pairing is warranted to maximize the benefits from structured mentorship in academic surgery.
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.