ArticleApplied clinical informatics2023
Creation and Evaluation of a Clinical Informatics Match: Initial Findings.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality and Usability Evaluation of U.S. Clinical Informatics Fellowship Websites.Applied clinical informatics · 2026Article
- A Longitudinal Graduate Medical Education Curriculum in Clinical Informatics: Function, Structure, and Evaluation.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Elevating Clinical Informatics: Dynamic Resident Training to Enhance Subspecialty Appeal.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical Informatics (CI) fellowship programs utilize the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) to gather applications but until recently used an American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) member-developed, simultaneous offer-acceptance process to match fellowship applicants to programs. In 2021, program directors collaborated with the AMIA to develop a new match to improve the process.
objectiveDescribe the results of the first 2 years of the match and address opportunities for improvement.
methodsWe obtained applicant data for fellowship applicants in 2021 and 2022 from the ERAS and match data for the same years from the AMIA. We analyzed our data using descriptive statistics.
resultsThere were 159 unique applicants over the 2-year period. Applicants submitted 2,178 applications with a median of 10 per applicant (interquartile range [IQR] 3-20). One hundred and four applicants (65.4%) participated in the match and ranked a median of seven programs (2-12). Forty-two programs in 2021 and 47 programs in 2022 offered a combined total 153 positions in the match. Participating programs ranked a median of eight applicants per year (IQR 5-11). Of participating applicants, 95 (91.3%) successfully matched and of those 66 (69.5%) received their top choice. Thirty-two programs (76.2%) matched at least one candidate in 2021 and 33 programs (70.2%) matched at least one candidate in 2022. In both years, 24 programs filled all available slots (57.1% in 2021 and 51.1% in 2022).
conclusionApplicants were extremely successful in the new match, which successfully addressed most of the challenges of the simultaneous offer-acceptance process identified by program directors. However, applicant attrition resulted in a quarter of programs going unmatched. Although many programs still filled slots outside the match, fellowship slots may remain unfilled while the CI practice pathway remains open.
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.