ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
The impact of virtual interviews on the Fellowship Council application and main match process.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. 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.
- Face-to-face or screen-to-screen: gynecologic oncology fellowship interview applicant perspectives on interview format.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic led the Fellowship Council (FC) to transition rapidly from in-person to virtual interviews. We investigated the impact of this transition on the FC application and main match process.
methodsFive years (2018-2022) of deidentified FC applicant, program, and match rank data were used to assess differences between in-person (2018-2019) and virtual interview (2021-2022) cycles. Data are expressed as mean ± SD and one-way and two-way MANOVA tests were applied.
resultsTrainees applied to an average of 30.4 ± 24.3 programs and ranked an average of 10.7 ± 9.7 programs with a 57% match rate and average rank position of 3.6 ± 3.3. Fellowship programs received an average of 64.9 ± 28.6 applications and ranked an average of 15.4 ± 8.8 applicants with a 95% match rate and average applicant rank position of 3.0 ± 3.4. Applicants who interviewed virtually applied to a greater number of programs (32.7 vs. 27.0; p < 0.001) and ranked a greater number of programs (11.5 vs. 10.0; p = 0.004) with no difference in match rates (58% vs. 55%, p = 0.291). Among matched applicants, there was a significant difference in average rank position (3.20 vs. 4.30, p < 0.001), favoring the in-person cohort. Fellowship programs had more applicants per program (69.2 vs. 57.8; p < 0.001) and ranked more applicants (17.4 vs. 13.3; p < 0.001) during the virtual interview cycles. No difference in either match rates (93% vs. 96%, p = 0.178) or applicant rank position (3.09 vs. 2.93, p = 0.561) was seen between in-person and virtual application cycles.
conclusionVirtual interviews were associated with an increased number of applications for fellowship and applicants ranked by programs but did not impact match rates of either group. Rank match position declined somewhat for applicants but not for fellowship programs. Virtual interviews offer more opportunities for applicants and a greater number of candidates for fellowship programs with only a slight decrement in fellow match rank position.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37749206What 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.