ArticleATS scholar2023
Implementing Holistic Review Practices in a Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellowship.
Article in ATS scholar, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Data-driven Approach to Selecting Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellows for Interviews.ATS scholar · 2025Article
- Holistic Review in Applicant Selection: A Scoping Review.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2025Article
- Review
- Cultivating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Pulmonary and Critical Care Training: A Path Toward Health Care Excellence.Critical care clinics · 2024Review
- Keeping Race and Diversity Relevant in Medical Education.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2024Article
- Putting the "Whole" in Holistic Review.ATS scholar · 2023Article
- Implementing Holistic Review Practices in a Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellowship.ATS scholar · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Medical schools have used holistic review in admissions to increase mission-aligned enrollment of students from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. Graduate medical education programs have increasingly followed suit. However, there is a paucity of literature regarding holistic review at the fellowship level. Objective: Here, we share our experience implementing the Association of American Medical Colleges core principles of holistic review during the 2021 recruitment cycle. Methods: We used a partially asynchronous and online learning strategy to train division members on the principles of holistic review. Following the match, we conducted a survey of faculty members and fellows to understand their opinions on our holistic review training and implementation. Results: Although few of our colleagues clearly understood holistic review before the training, they were able to identify broad-based criteria that aligned with our division's mission and balanced applicants' experiences, attributes, competencies, and metrics. These were viewed as better selection criteria than traditional measures and were incorporated into the individualized consideration of applicants. Our survey had a 41.5% response rate, with 10 of 22 fellows and 24 of 60 faculty members responding. Most faculty members and fellows agreed that holistic review decreases socioeconomic disparities in fellowship recruitment (79.2% and 80.0%, respectively) and promotes inclusion and diversity (83.3% and 90.0%, respectively). Faculty members appeared more confident than fellows that our training efforts had influenced recruitment. All respondents agreed that it would be critical for such training to be repeated yearly. Conclusion: Although this was a single-institution experience, implementing holistic review was feasible and well received by faculty and fellows.
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.