ArticleJTCVS open2025
Recommendation letter language for applicants selected to interview at integrated cardiothoracic surgery residency: A qualitative assessment by gender.
Article in JTCVS open, 2025. 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
Objective: Cardiothoracic (CT) surgery remains a male-dominated specialty. Letters of recommendation (LORs) influence trainee selection and are vulnerable to biases. We aimed to qualitatively assess differences in LORs to integrated residency on the basis of applicant gender. Methods: LORs for applicants who interviewed at a single integrated CT residency program during one cycle were selected and pooled by applicant gender. Gendered and identifying references were redacted. Letters were analyzed by a thematic analysis approach and managed through NVivo software. Results: Thirty LORs across 8 male applicants and 43 LORs across 11 female applicants were analyzed. There was no noticeable difference between the frequency of positive attributes assigned to each gender. Research accomplishments was the most emphasized competency, with no gender-based difference identified. LORs for female applicants tended to be longer and include stronger positive adjectives. For male applicants, descriptions of external recognition were almost exclusively via mention of scholarships or research, whereas female applicants were more likely to receive word-of-mouth recognition. Letter writers often attested to male applicants' commitment to CT surgery, whereas female applicants received more commentary around effective patient care. Conclusions: Letters for men tended to focus on research accolades and career commitment, whereas letters for women were longer and more likely to emphasize patient care or faculty endorsement. Future studies may discern whether this phenomenon reflects stronger applicant-writer relationships for female applicants or a disadvantageous approach by letter writers for female applicants that relies on subjective rationale.
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.