ArticleCureus2024
Dermatology Program Coordinators' Role and Insight in the Resident Selection Process.
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
backgroundWith the evolution of residency applications and the myriad of roles that program coordinators (PCs) undertake, there is a gap in the medical education literature surrounding PCs' role in the resident selection process.
objectiveWe sought to quantify the role of Dermatology residency PCs in the resident selection process and the unique perspective they gain from their interactions with applicants.
methodsPC- and program director (PD)-specific surveys were designed and distributed in 2023 via email to Dermatology PDs via the Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD) listserv and to PCs via email using the contact information found on publicly available residency program websites.
resultsSurvey responses included 62 PCs (33.9% response rate; sent to 184 PCs) and 35 PDs (unable to ascertain response rate; sent to APD listserv). Of the PC respondents, 25 (40.3%) reported participation in applicant ranking, with six (24%) participating as formal committee members, 14 (56%) contributing informal commentary, and only five (20%) functioning in administrative-only roles. Further, 16 (64%) PCs who participated in applicant ranking reported that their input yielded a change in the candidate ranking order, and a majority agreed that their input was helpful (21, 84%) and valued (21, 84%). All eight (100%) PDs who included their PC in the applicant ranking agreed that the PC input was helpful and valued. Finally, 49 (79.1%) PCs agree that they gain a perspective on candidates, with 36 (58%) feeling that their perspectives are unique from those of faculty members.
conclusionResidency PCs have the potential to play a reportedly consequential, helpful, valuable, and unique role in the resident selection process.
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.