ArticleAEM education and training2024
Faculty consensus on competitiveness for the new competency-based emergency medicine standardized letter of evaluation.
Article in AEM education and training, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uncertainty in Standardized Letter of Evaluation Authorship: A Qualitative Study of Emergency Medicine Faculty.AEM education and training · 2026Article
- A 30-year History of the Emergency Medicine Standardized Letter of Evaluation.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Association of individual item characteristics with faculty competitiveness rankings in emergency medicine standardized letters of evaluation.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- The standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) in emergency medicine: The internal validity of the SLOE 2.0.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- Prevalence and characteristics of group standardized letters of evaluation in emergency medicine: A cross-sectional observational study.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- ChatG-PD? Comparing large language model artificial intelligence and faculty rankings of the competitiveness of standardized letters of evaluation.AEM education and training · 2024Article
- Generalizability of consensus regarding standardized letters of evaluation competitiveness: A validity study in a national sample of emergency medicine faculty.AEM education and training · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Emergency medicine (EM) has introduced a new, competency-based standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) template. While a previous version of the SLOE has been shown to promote a high degree of faculty consensus regarding competitiveness, this has not been shown for the new SLOE template. Objective: The objective was to evaluate faculty consensus on competitiveness for the new EM SLOE 2.0. Methods: Fifty mock SLOE 2.0 letters using the new template were drafted and sent to a group of experienced EM educators. The 50 letters were ranked by the experienced faculty as well as a point-based prediction model and a regression model and the results were compared. Results: Faculty consensus on competitiveness remained strong when using the new SLOE 2.0 format. The points-based prediction model and regression model both demonstrated a high level of agreement with faculty consensus rankings for the SLOE 2.0. Conclusions: Introduction of the new, competency-based SLOE 2.0 format did not have a deleterious effect on faculty consensus rankings of competitiveness.
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.