ArticleCureus2025
Research Verification in the Application Review Process for Orthopaedic Surgery Residency.
Article 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe integrity of applications submitted by medical students applying for orthopaedic surgery residency has been a topic of concern within the medical community in recent years. Although research misrepresentation is a recognized issue, there is limited information on how orthopaedic surgery residency programs verify the research contributions listed by medical students during the application process. The purpose of this study is to identify if and how orthopaedic surgery residency programs verify the research section of an application.
methodsA 28-question anonymous survey was distributed in March 2024 to program directors, assistant program directors, and research directors in the department of orthopaedic surgery at participating Collaborative Orthopaedic Educational Research Group (COERG) programs. The survey was open for three weeks and assessed the respondents' background, their application review practices, and the reasoning behind these practices.
resultsThere were a total of 10 respondents: eight identified as male (80%), one identified as female (10%), and one identified as a transgender female (10%). Six of 10 (60%) respondents did not verify research listed on orthopaedic surgery residency applications. Only three (30%) verified both posters and publications, and one (10%) participant verified publications only. Of those who verified research, the most common verification process was both checking PubMed/similar platforms (three, 33%) and contacting research mentors or collaborators (three, 33%). Six (60%) respondents were at least somewhat concerned with research misrepresentation, and eight (80%) felt that verification of research on Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) applications should be standard practice. The primary reason cited by programs that did not verify research was the significant time investment required to establish a consistent process, accounting for eight (47%) responses. Four (40%) respondents felt that incorporating research verification into the application review process would extend each review by 31 minutes to an hour.
conclusionOrthopaedic surgery residency programs are generally concerned with research misrepresentation among applicants; however, most programs are not yet actively verifying research reported in the ERAS application. The primary concern among programs is the time required for verification. There is a need for the creation of standardized research verification practices that can be adopted by all programs. Programs may consider implementing more efficient verification strategies or prioritizing confirmation of an applicant's most significant research achievements to ensure a fair and accurate evaluation of applicants.
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.