Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37325295›Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2023

Gynecologic Oncology fellowship recruitment in the virtual era: An evaluation of program websites and survey of applicant preferences.

Lauren Montemorano, Connor C Wang, Ankitha Madde, J Stuart Ferriss, Bunja J Rungruang, Brittany A Davidson, Ryan J Spencer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lauren MontemoranoDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Connor C WangDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Ankitha MaddeDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
J Stuart FerrissKelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Bunja J RungruangDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA.
Brittany A DavidsonDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Ryan J SpencerDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Virtual Gynecologic Oncology fellowship recruitment has altered how candidates and programs exchange information. This study analyzes programs' web-based content and the priorities of fellowship candidates. Methods: Web-based materials of Gynecologic Oncology fellowship programs participating in the 2022 match were reviewed. An anonymous survey was emailed to applicants. Questions assessed importance of web-based materials on a Likert scale. Respondents were asked to rank factors from most to least important in their decisions to interview and rank programs. Results: Of the 66 programs participating in the 2022 Gynecologic Oncology fellowship match, 62 (93.9%) had accessible websites. Over one-fourth (25.8%) of program websites did not list application requirements. Most (74.2%) websites contained requests for letters of recommendation, but fewer (48.4%) specified the preferred quantity or authorship. Residency in-service exam score requirement information was present on 61.3% of websites. Of 100 applicants invited to participate, 44 returned surveys (44% response rate). The median number of programs applied to was 60 (IQR 51-65). Web-based materials most important to candidates were application requirements and deadlines, letter of recommendation details, and in-service exam requirements. Interaction with faculty and program information received during interview days were among the most important factors in decisions to rank programs. Conclusions: Gynecologic Oncology fellowship applicants surveyed in this study applied to nearly all participating fellowships. The content of web-based materials varies across program websites, particularly for application requirements, which applicants indicated as the most important electronically available material. Programs should have clear application requirements and provide clinical details on their websites.

Indexed as

FellowshipGynecologic OncologyVirtual interviewing

Identifiers

PMID37325295
PMCPMC10265452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.