ReviewEye (London, England)2025
A review of selection criteria for ophthalmology training in the Western world.
Review in Eye (London, England), 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.
- The Wicked Problem of Selection and Competency-Based Education: Applying TRIZ Inversion to the Graduate Medical Education Selection Process.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- Ophthalmology Training in Greece: Challenges, Realities, and Pathways Toward Modernization.Cureus · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo (a) analyse, compare and learn from the global variations in ophthalmology training applicant selection criteria, specifically CV assessment, and (b) provide a discussion of evidence supporting such selection criteria.
methodsAn observational analysis on the selection criteria used to assess candidates applying to ophthalmology training programs within the US, Canada, European Union / European Economic Union (EU/EEA), United Kingdom (UK) and Australia and New Zealand (ANZ). Presence of a publicly available selection criteria policy for the 2025 intake was searched for on national and local college, society, federation and training program websites. The selection criteria employed for assessing applicant CV, and its associated scoring (if existent), were recorded for the included programs. Descriptive statistics was applied to these data.
results174 accredited ophthalmology training programs were identified, and 51/174 publish a publicly available selection criteria policy. Overall, the most important criteria from ophthalmic training bodies in the Western world include research experience, academic achievements, particularly in the form of awards and prizes, references supporting evidence of favourable personal and professional characteristics, and evidence of involvement in extracurricular activities that produce evidence of a well-founded interest in ophthalmology.
conclusionsEach region adopts varying selection processes and frameworks, which, rather than reflect a standardised international approach to selecting an "ideal" ophthalmology trainee, perhaps select for the specific needs of the country and or training program. The study is limited by its observational nature.
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.