Article in Neurology. Education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it
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.
2 · The registry
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.
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
5 · Who and what money
Authors and funding
7 authors.
William Alexander DalrympleFrom the Department of Neurology (W.A.D., A.M.S.), University of Virginia, Charlottesville; Department of Neurology (R.U.), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Neurology (J.B.R.), Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; Department of Neurology (J.C.), University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor; Department of Neurology (A.W.), University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix; and Department of Public Health Sciences (J.T.P., A.M.S.), University of Virginia, Charlottesville.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4356-2893
Robin UlepFrom the Department of Neurology (W.A.D., A.M.S.), University of Virginia, Charlottesville; Department of Neurology (R.U.), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Neurology (J.B.R.), Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; Department of Neurology (J.C.), University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor; Department of Neurology (A.W.), University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix; and Department of Public Health Sciences (J.T.P., A.M.S.), University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Jeffrey B RatliffFrom the Department of Neurology (W.A.D., A.M.S.), University of Virginia, Charlottesville; Department of Neurology (R.U.), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Neurology (J.B.R.), Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; Department of Neurology (J.C.), University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor; Department of Neurology (A.W.), University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix; and Department of Public Health Sciences (J.T.P., A.M.S.), University of Virginia, Charlottesville.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1264-1070
Joseph CarreraFrom the Department of Neurology (W.A.D., A.M.S.), University of Virginia, Charlottesville; Department of Neurology (R.U.), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Neurology (J.B.R.), Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; Department of Neurology (J.C.), University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor; Department of Neurology (A.W.), University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix; and Department of Public Health Sciences (J.T.P., A.M.S.), University of Virginia, Charlottesville.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2487-4506
Alan WangFrom the Department of Neurology (W.A.D., A.M.S.), University of Virginia, Charlottesville; Department of Neurology (R.U.), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Neurology (J.B.R.), Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; Department of Neurology (J.C.), University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor; Department of Neurology (A.W.), University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix; and Department of Public Health Sciences (J.T.P., A.M.S.), University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
James T PatrieFrom the Department of Neurology (W.A.D., A.M.S.), University of Virginia, Charlottesville; Department of Neurology (R.U.), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Neurology (J.B.R.), Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; Department of Neurology (J.C.), University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor; Department of Neurology (A.W.), University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix; and Department of Public Health Sciences (J.T.P., A.M.S.), University of Virginia, Charlottesville.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7392-830X
Andrew M SoutherlandFrom the Department of Neurology (W.A.D., A.M.S.), University of Virginia, Charlottesville; Department of Neurology (R.U.), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Neurology (J.B.R.), Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; Department of Neurology (J.C.), University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor; Department of Neurology (A.W.), University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix; and Department of Public Health Sciences (J.T.P., A.M.S.), University of Virginia, Charlottesville.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3646-358X
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
6 · The paper itself
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The residency application process relies on interviews, which allow programs and applicants to assess one another. Historically, interviews were conducted in person at each program. With the advent of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, residency interviews shifted to a virtual format. Now, many specialties are choosing to return to in-person interviews. The objective of this study was to evaluate the resident perspective of virtual and in-person interviews. Methods: We created a survey about various aspects of the residency interview process and distributed it to neurology residents in all years of training from 5 institutions across the United States. Because of the timing of survey distribution, some residents interviewed in-person while others interviewed virtually. We focused the survey on a few themes: number of applications, cost, and overall quality. Survey response data were analyzed using generalized linear models and by nonparametric methods for categorical data. Results: Of the 164 total residents among the 5 programs, 60 completed the survey; 25 (41.7%) interviewed in-person while 35 (58.3%) interviewed virtually. Applicants who interviewed virtually applied to more programs (38.2 ± 26.6 vs 20.7 ± 7.4, Discussion: There are multiple factors to consider when deciding on in-person or virtual residency interviews. In-person interviews are significantly more expensive and thus raise issues of equity but also provide better insight into the culture, location, and "fit" of programs and can help to reduce application burden. All these factors need to be considered before moving forward with a decision on residency interview formats for the future.
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.
Education Research: Has Video Killed the Interview Star?: A Survey of Current Neurology Residents on In-Person vs Virtual Residency Interviews. · full record | OpenQuestion