ReviewJB & JS open access
Reimagining the Path of an Unmatched Orthopaedic Residency Application: A Survey of Program Directors.
Review in JB & JS open access. 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.
- Review
- The Real Match Rate? US DO Students Match Into Orthopaedic Surgery at Significantly Lower Rates than US MD Students Despite Single Accreditation.JB & JS open accessReview
- Inaccuracies in Orthopaedic Research Fellowship Applications: A Study on Authorship Misrepresentations.JB & JS open accessReview
- Navigating Failure to Match in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Guide for Mentors.JB & JS open accessReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Few evidence-based suggestions are available to help applicants and mentors improve reapplication outcomes. We sought to provide program directors' (PDs) perspectives on actionable steps to improve reapplicants' chances for a match. Methods: The PDs were asked to rank positions unmatched applicants can pursue, steps these applicants can take for the next application cycle, and reasons why reapplicants do not match. Results: Responses from 66 of 123 PDs were received (53.6% response rate). Obtaining new recommendation letters and rotating with orthopaedics were the highest 20 ranked steps unmatched applicants can take. No curriculum vitae (CV) improvement, poor interview, and poor letters of recommendation were the most important reasons hindering applicants from matching when reapplying. Conclusions: Steps reapplicants could prioritize include obtaining new recommendation letters, rotating in orthopaedics, and producing new research items. CV strengthening and improving interview skills address the 2 main reasons why unmatched applicants failed in subsequent attempts. Level of Evidence: Level IV.
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.