ArticleCureus2024
Preparing for Virtual Interviews: A Pilot Study to Understand the Needs of Interviewees.
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
Virtual interviews play a crucial role in the ranking process. National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) data shows a median number of 23.5 interviews per applicant. Considering this volume of interviews, graduate medical education programs must leverage the virtual pre-interview materials to impact applicants' attitudes and perceptions of the interview beforehand. This study is a secondary data analysis of an anonymous cross-sectional survey collected during two orientation sessions held in June and July 2022. Responses from 123 residents and fellows rated the usefulness of available print and virtual pre-interview resources. Using a 5-point Likert scale, social media sites scored an average usefulness score of 4.0, while the information packet and program website scored 3.88 and 3.90, respectively. This article provides recommendations for restructuring virtual resources to aid residents and fellows, specifically under-represented minorities in medicine (UiM) applicants, in having a quality interview experience.
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.