Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38145482›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2023

Improving Transparency in the Residency Application Process: Survey Study.

Lindsey Ulin, Simone A Bernstein, Julio C Nunes, Alex Gu, Maya M Hammoud, Jessica A Gold, Kamran M Mirza

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. "We Co-Created This Mess": Letters Between UME and GME.Journal of graduate medical education · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Preference Signaling: Does It Work? A MultispecialtyReview of the Data.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Lindsey UlinDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7700-1664
Simone A BernsteinDepartment of Psychiatry, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6928-4182
Julio C NunesDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9622-3361
Alex GuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4814-0796
Maya M HammoudDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7829-7930
Jessica A GoldDepartment of Psychiatry, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0816-8954
Kamran M MirzaDepartment of Pathology and Clinical Laboratories, University of Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4856-1996
University of Michigan · USWashington University in St. Louis · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USGeorge Washington University · USYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasing numbers of residency applications create challenges for applicants and residency programs to assess if they are a good fit during the residency application and match process. Applicants face limited or conflicting information as they assess programs, leading to overapplying. A holistic review of residency applications is considered a gold standard for programs, but the current volumes and associated time constraints leave programs relying on numerical filters, which do not predict success in residency. Applicants could benefit from increased transparency in the residency application process.

objectiveThis study aims to determine the information applicants find most beneficial from residency programs when deciding where to apply, by type of medical school education background.

methodsMatch 2023 applicants voluntarily completed an anonymous survey through the Twitter and Instagram social media platforms. We asked the respondents to select 3 top factors from a multiple-choice list of what information they would like from residency programs to help determine if the characteristics of their application align with program values. We examined differences in helpful factors selected by medical school backgrounds using ANOVA.

resultsThere were 4649 survey respondents. When responses were analyzed by United States-allopathic (US-MD), doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO), and international medical graduate (IMG) educational backgrounds, respondents chose different factors as most helpful: minimum United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) or Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) Step 2 scores (565/3042, 18.57% US-MD; 485/3042, 15.9% DO; and 1992/3042, 65.48% IMG; P<.001), resident hometown region (281/1132, 24.82% US-MD; 189/1132, 16.7% DO; and 662/1132, 58.48% IMG; P=.02), resident medical school region (476/2179, 22% US-MD; 250/2179, 11.5% DO; and 1453/2179, 66.7% IMG; P=.002), and percent of residents or attendings underrepresented in medicine (417/1815, 22.98% US-MD; 158/1815, 8.71% DO; and 1240/1815, 68.32% IMG; P<.001).

conclusionsWhen applying to residency programs, this study found that the factors that respondents consider most helpful from programs in deciding where to apply differ by educational background. Across all educational groups, respondents want transparency around standardized exam scores, geography, and the racial or ethnic backgrounds of residents and attendings.

Indexed as

data elaborationinformation transparencymedical schoolresidency applicationresidency programsresident

Identifiers

PMID38145482
PMCPMC10775039
OpenAlexW4388828808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.