ArticleJAMA network open2023
Interview Invitations for Otolaryngology Residency Positions Across Demographic Groups Following Implementation of Preference Signaling.
Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The impact of preference signaling on interview and match rate for surgical match in resident education: a meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- A Review of Program Signaling Effects, Perceptions, and Trends for Medical Residencies.Journal of graduate medical education · 2025Pooled it
- More Signals, Fewer Applications: Calibrating Preference Signaling for Residency Application.Journal of graduate medical education · 2026Article
- Virtual Versus In-Person Interviews: The Impact of Perceived Success on the Applicant Experience.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
- The Relative Influence of Program Signaling, Geographic Preferences, and In-State Status in Determining Odds of Interview Invitation in Residency Selection.Journal of graduate medical education · 2025Article
- Impact of Applicant Signaling for Otolaryngology Interviews.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Preference Signaling in the Urology Match.Current urology reports · 2024Review
- Internal Medicine Applicants' Experiences With Program Signaling and Second Looks: A Multi-Institutional Survey.The American journal of medicine · 2024Article
- How Changing Signaling Volume Impacts the Importance of Away Rotations in the Otolaryngology Match.OTO openArticle
- Practical Tips for Undergraduate Medical Education Advisors in Residency Application Signaling.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Preference signaling is a new initiative in the residency application process that has been adopted by 17 specialties that include more than 80% of applicants in the 2023 National Resident Matching cycle. The association of signals with interview selection rate across applicant demographics has not been fully examined. Objective: To assess the validity of survey-based data on the association of preference signals with interview offers and describe the variation across demographic groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study examined the interview selection outcomes across demographic groups for applications with and without signals in the 2021 Otolaryngology National Resident Matching cycle. Data were obtained from a post-hoc collaboration between the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Otolaryngology Program Directors Organization evaluating the first preference signaling program used in residency application. Participants included otolaryngology residency applicants in the 2021 application cycle. Data were analyzed from June to July 2022. Exposures: Applicants were provided the option of submitting 5 signals to otolaryngology residency programs to indicate specific interest. Signals were used by programs when selecting candidates to interview. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome of interest was the association of signaling with interview selection. A series of logistic regression analyses were conducted at the individual program level. Each program within the 3 program cohorts (overall, gender, and URM status) was evaluated with 2 models. Results: Of 636 otolaryngology applicants, 548 (86%) participated in preference signaling, including 337 men (61%) and 85 applicants (16%) who identified as underrepresented in medicine, including American Indian or Alaska Native; Black or African American; Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish origin; or Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. The median interview selection rate for applications with a signal (48% [95% CI, 27%-68%]) was significantly higher than for applications without a signal (10% [95% CI, 7%-13%]). No difference was observed in median interview selection rates with or without signals when comparing male (46% [95% CI, 24%-71%] vs 7% [95% CI, 5%-12%]) and female (50% [95% CI, 20%-80%] vs 12% [95% CI, 8%-18%]) applicants or when comparing applicants who identified as URM (53% [95% CI, 16%-88%] vs 15% [95% CI, 8%-26%]) with those who did not identify as URM (49% [95% CI, 32%-68%] vs 8% [95% CI, 5%-12%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of otolaryngology residency applicants, preference signaling was associated with an increased likelihood of applicants being selected for interview by signaled programs. This correlation was robust and present across the demographic categories of gender and self-identification as URM. Future research should explore the associations of signaling across a broad range of specialties and the associations of signals with inclusion and position on rank order lists and match outcomes.
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.