ArticleCureus2024
Do Program Directors of Anesthesiology Residency Programs Interpret Narrative Letters of Recommendation as Intended?
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Letters of recommendation (LORs) are an important part of the application process for medical residency programs with most specialties preferring a narrative format. Given the inherent subjectivity of narrative LORs, the current study sought to determine whether the intended messages of narrative LORs written for applicants to anesthesiology residency programs are accurately interpreted by readers. Methodology Anonymous online surveys were sent via the Qualtrics platform to program directors (PDs) of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited anesthesiology residency programs in the Mid-Atlantic region as designated by the Electronic Residency Application Service, which consists of the states of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Each PD participant received five surveys, each of which was attached to a de-identified LOR that was written by another PD located at an institution in the same region. Both the letter writer and study participants were asked to score LORs on a Likert-like scale. Participants were additionally asked whether the LORs, if received, would influence their decision to either offer an interview to the applicant or to rank the applicant. Finally, participants were asked to note any specific words or phrases within the LORs that they found to be particularly impactful. Results Overall, 10 of 34, 29.41%, PDs responded to the survey. There was a high correlation between the LOR intent and the respondents' assigned rating (Spearman's rho = 0.7973, p < 0.001). Responses were more accurate for "outstanding and excellent" LORs compared to the lower three categories. Results were unaffected after adjusting for respondents' years of experience as PDs. Additionally, 71.6% indicated that the LORs would influence the decision about offering an interview, and 56.5% stated that the LORs would influence a ranking decision. Conclusions Our results indicate that respondents' perception of LORs correlated strongly with the intent of the writer. Additionally, respondents seemed to value LORs for interview and ranking decisions.
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.