ArticleAEM education and training2025
Prevalence and characteristics of group standardized letters of evaluation in emergency medicine: A cross-sectional observational study.
Article in AEM education and training, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A 30-year History of the Emergency Medicine Standardized Letter of Evaluation.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Prevalence and characteristics of group standardized letters of evaluation in emergency medicine: A cross-sectional observational study.AEM education and training · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) for emergency medicine (EM) is a well-established tool for residency selection. While previous work characterizes the utility and outcomes related to SLOE use, less is known about SLOE authorship patterns and trends. Objective: The objective was to measure the prevalence of group SLOEs in EM over time, characterize the role groups represented in group SLOEs, and compare the rating practices of groups of authors versus single authors. Methods: SLOE data from 2016 through 2021 were obtained from the CORD database. An algorithm was developed to process SLOE author fields to accomplish three tasks: (1) determine whether the SLOE was written by an individual or a group, (2) determine the number of named letter writers on group SLOEs, and (3) identify roles of individuals listed on group SLOEs. A total of 150 SLOEs were randomly selected for review by the study team to use as a standard to which algorithm performance was compared. Mean ratings were compared for (1) individual versus group SLOEs and (2) individual SLOEs from clerkship directors (CDs) versus others. Results: A total of 40,218 SLOEs met inclusion criteria. The algorithm performed well in detecting group SLOEs, authors, and titles. Institutions submitting only SLOEs written by a group of authors increased from 31.4% to 54.5%. Authors per group SLOE increased from 3.4 in 2016 to 4.0 in 2021. Mean ratings were slightly higher in individual SLOEs compared to group SLOEs. Individual SLOEs from non-CDs had higher ratings compared to those from CDs. Conclusions: The proportion of SLOEs authored by groups increased over the study interval. Grading practices are similar between group SLOEs and individual SLOEs authored by CDs. Individual SLOEs from non-CDs had slightly higher ratings compared to the other groups.
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.