ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2024
Applicant and Program Director Perceptions of Second Look Events During the 2023 Radiation Oncology Residency Match.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Virtual radiation oncology (RO) residency interviews may impair applicant and program evaluation. Second look events (SLEs) exist; however, the frequency, nature, and implications are unknown. We surveyed applicants and program directors (PDs) to characterize the 2023 RO Match SLEs and assess perspectives. Method and Materials: An online, anonymous survey was distributed to 2023 RO Match applicants and American College of Graduate Medical Education-accredited RO PDs post-Match. Number and percentage are reported as response per question. Likert-type scores (1, strongly agree; 5, strongly disagree) are reported as median, IQR. Results: Responses were received from 51 of 246 applicants (21%) and 52 of 88 PDs (59%). Forty applicants (87%) were offered in-person and virtual SLEs; 20 (51%) and 17 (44%) applicants were invited to 1 to 3 and 4 to 6 events, respectively. Most invited applicants attended none (21, 54%). Applicants reported that all (21, 54%) or some (16, 41%) programs communicated intentions to finalize rank order lists (ROLs) before SLEs. Most applicants (29, 74%) agreed that SLEs were optional without ROL consequences (median, 2, IQR 1-3). Applicants declined in-person SLEs due to city/facility indifference (10, 43%), finances (10, 43%), and logistics (9, 39%). Most (12, 86%) in-person SLE attendees agreed that SLEs influenced their ROL (median, 2, IQR 1-2). Nineteen PDs (40%) reported offering SLEs, with 18 of 19 being in-person. PDs who did not offer SLEs cited ethical concerns (13, 45%) and institutional policies (11, 38%). All PDs reported that SLEs were optional, and 18 of 19 explained that the SLE would be without ROL consequences. SLEs mostly occurred in February before (11, 58%) and after (15, 79%) ROL submission. Conclusions: In-person SLEs occurred during Match 2023. All PDs considered SLEs optional which was trusted by most applicants. Attendance at in-person SLEs influenced applicants' ROLs; however, finances and logistics impaired applicant attendance. Further work is needed to appreciate SLE implications and ensure equitable residency recruitment.
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.