ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Impact of Applicant Signaling for Otolaryngology Interviews.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preference Signaling in Plastic Surgery: A Survey of Applicants' Perceptions and Experience.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Signaling in the Gastroenterology Fellowship Match: A Primer for Applicants and Programs.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- Virtual Versus In-Person Interviews: The Impact of Perceived Success on the Applicant Experience.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
- Otolaryngology Residency Application Trends and Match Outcomes at a Large Academic Medical Center.ORL; journal for oto-rhino-laryngology and its related specialties · 2025Article
- Analyzing Otolaryngology Signaling Match Trends Between 2018-2024 With Other Surgical Specialties.OTO openArticle
- How Changing Signaling Volume Impacts the Importance of Away Rotations in the Otolaryngology Match.OTO openArticle
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
Abstract
objectiveTo assess applicant opinions regarding program signaling and to understand the effect of 25 signals on interview outcomes during the 2023-2024 otolaryngology residency cycle.
methodsA 36-item anonymous online survey regarding signaling was sent to applicants who had applied to an otolaryngology residency program at a single institution. Participant demographics, performance in medical school, number of interviews received in relation to signals sent, and applicant perceptions regarding preference signaling were assessed.
resultsEighty-one applicants participated with a response rate of 30%. Students applied to a median of 64 programs. Approximately 84.4% of interview offers came from programs which the participants signaled. Participants were 5.4 times more likely to get an interview from a program they signaled over programs they did not signal (F = 31.73, p < 0.001). The most common factors that influenced which programs were chosen by candidates were: location (94.9%), departmental reputation (80.8%), and experience on a sub-internship rotation (69.2%). Overall, 73.0% of participants found signaling helpful and 82.0% agreed that signaling should continue.
conclusionUnderstanding the implications of a high-signaling application process in otolaryngology is crucial. Twenty-five signals led to 84% of interview offers coming from signaled programs and this was the most important variable associated with interview invitations. Location was the most prevalent factor when deciding where to signal. Signaling was well reviewed by most applicants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 135:80-86, 2025.
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.