ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation of Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellowship Program Websites.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) recommended that all interviews for residencies and fellowships be conducted in a virtual format. As of March 2024, the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) continues to request that all fellowship interviews occur virtually. Without in-person interviews, prospective Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) fellowship applicants must largely rely on program websites to gain insight into each program's offerings, culture, and application requirements. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the content of American College of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) fellowship program websites and assess if regional differences exist among website content. Methods All ACGME-accredited MFM fellowship program websites were assessed for 21 defined criteria as of March 2024 and further compared by geographic regions (Midwest, Northeast, South, and West). Analyses were completed using chi-squared univariate tests, with a p < 0.05. Results Of the 108 accredited MFM fellowship programs, 106 programs had a dedicated website (98.15%). Most MFM programs (over 80%) included contact information (102/106), program director name (98/106), faculty names (95/106), application requirements (92/106), current fellow names (91/106), and the program coordinator name (89/106) on their website. Less programs (less than 30%) included diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI) content (28/106), interview dates (28/106), and current fellow research projects or publications (27/106). Western programs were less likely to include the program coordinator's name (12/18 (67%), p = 0.046), but more likely to include DEI content (10/18 (56%), p = 0.005). Northeastern programs were less likely to include their application requirements (24/32 (75%), p = 0.049) and less likely to include pictures of their current fellows (20/32 (63%), p = 0.045). Southern programs were more likely to include the yearly rotation schedule (19/32 (59%), p = 0.040). Midwestern programs were more likely to include information on fellowship benefits or salary (15/24 (63%), p = 0.046). Conclusion This study demonstrated that the content available on MFM fellowship websites varies greatly between programs and geographic regions. Efforts should be made by MFM training institutions to enhance website DEI content, curriculum information, recent fellow publications, and information on program alumni. A detailed and well-structured website may help applicants compare individual programs more equitably in the age of virtual interviewing.
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.