ArticleOTO open
Quality Versus Quantity: Using Scholarly Activity to Assess Otolaryngology Residency Candidates.
Article in OTO open. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Selecting qualified candidates each year for residency positions has become more difficult in recent years, due to the sharp increase in Otolaryngology applicants. Although there are objective measures that can be used to directly compare medical students during the initial screening process, most information in the application is highly subjective and/or variable across institutions. Many programs count the total posters/presentations and publications to gauge scholarship. This measure of quantity may lead to negative bias toward those who have no home program, limited time outside of academics, and/or inadequate resources to engage in volunteer research. Evaluating the quality of research may be superior to quantity. A first-author publication is a viable proxy that demonstrates applicants have developed skills that set them apart from their peers. They likely possess non-clinical, translatable skills including internal motivation, self-regulation, curation of information, and task completion that map closely with qualities that make for excellent residents.
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.