Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38987486›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2024

Virtual Urology Residency Interviews in the Post-Pandemic Era.

Sakina Z Neemuchwala, Gary E Lemack

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Sakina Z NeemuchwalaUT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, TX, USA. Sakina.Neemuchwala@UTSouthwestern.edu.
Gary E LemackDepartment of Urology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewUrology programs are considering maintaining the virtual format for residency interviews after COVID-19. This article explores the benefits and possible risks of this decision, as well as ways the application process can be improved. RECENT

findingsVirtual interviews save students and programs time and money, attracting a more diverse pool of applicants. Most applicants believe that faculty interviews are well replicated virtually; however, it is difficult to represent the culture of the program and city. Program directors are concerned about adequate evaluation of applicants virtually. There is also concern of over-application by candidates and inequities surrounding away rotations. Virtual interviews have become mandated in Urology over the last several years, with some notable benefits. Ongoing analysis of the advantages, and potential threats, of this policy is essential to developing an equitable and functional interview process for students and programs alike, in the post-pandemic era.

Indexed as

COVID-19Internship and ResidencyInterviews as TopicUrologyHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Match processUrologyVirtual interview

Identifiers

PMID38987486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.