ArticleCanadian medical education journal2024
Trends in ophthalmology applicants going unmatched in the Canadian Resident Matching Service.
Article in Canadian medical education journal, 2024. 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.
- The medical school curriculum is not designed for long-term retention: we should stop being alarmed when our learners forget.Canadian medical education journal · 2024Article
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
Background: Applicants to ophthalmology have high rates of going unmatched during the CaRMS process, but how this compares to other competitive or surgical specialties remains unclear. Our research aims to examine this phenomenon by identifying trends and comparing match data with other specialties, to identify disparities that may inform the need for future interventions to improve the match process for applicants. Methods: We used a cross-sectional analysis of data provided by CaRMS on the residency match from 2013 to 2022. Results: We obtained data from 608 ophthalmology, 5,153 surgery, and 3,092 top five (most competitive) specialty first choice applicants from 2013-2022. Ophthalmology applicants were more likely to go unmatched (18.9% [120/608]) than applicants to the top five (11.9% [371/3,092]) and surgical (13.5% [702/5,153]) specialties (p<0.001) and were twice as likely to rank no alternate disciplines (31.8%, Conclusion: Compared to other competitive specialties, first choice ophthalmology applicants were more likely to go unmatched, rank no alternate disciplines, and choose not to participate in the second iteration. Ophthalmology applicant behaviours should be further studied to help explain these study findings.
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.