ReviewCureus2025
Ranking United States' Medical Residency Programs: A Systematic Review and Critical Analysis of Doximity's Residency Navigator Tool.
Review in Cureus, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Doximity (Doximity, Inc., San Francisco, CA), a platform for healthcare professionals, aids residency applicants in program ranking decisions, despite debate over its rankings' reliability due to a lack of objectivity. Nevertheless, studies reveal that Doximity's Residency Navigator (DRN) rankings influence program selection. This study aims to analyze the impact of Doximity rankings on applicant decision-making. A systematic review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was conducted and PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases were queried to identify DRN-related articles. Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation Ltd, Melbourne, Australia) was used for screening. The review included studies evaluating DRN rankings' usage by residency applicants. A total of eight of 266 screened articles were included. Survey data were analyzed from 5,068 residency applicants: 22% emergency medicine, 16% general surgery, and 12% internal medicine. Common themes encompassed the influence of the program's social media or DRN reputation (7/8), calls for enhanced DRN objectivity (4/8), and the significance of the program's online presence (3/8) and applicants' mentors (2/8). Perceived inaccuracies included DRN's survey sampling bias and construct validity. Despite applicant perception of inaccuracy, DRN rankings influence program preferences and applicants' residency program rank lists. This study recommends future research to develop an objective residency ranking system that better aligns with applicant priorities.
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.