ReviewJB & JS open access
The Evolution and Impact of Preference Signaling on Orthopaedic Residency After Two Years.
Review in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Where Should I Signal? A Program-Level Analysis of Preference Signaling in the Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Match.JB & JS open accessReview
- Virtual or In-Person? A Census of Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Interview Formats for Match 2025.JB & JS open accessReview
- Exploring the Orthopaedic Surgery Match: An Analysis of Trends in Applicant Characteristics After the Introduction of a Pass/Fail USMLE Step 1 Examination.JB & JS open accessReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Residency programs have begun to offer preference signaling as a method for applicants to demonstrate commitment to programs. Orthopaedic surgery, which began signaling in 2022, allows applicants to use up to 30 signals. Early studies have evaluated the effects of signaling, demonstrating decreased application volume, varying effects on interviews, and high levels of applicant and faculty satisfaction. While the effects of signaling are beginning to be studied, multiple year evaluations are absent from the literature. The purpose of this study was to explore the impacts of signaling on the orthopaedic surgery match over its first two years. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using a prospectively collected Results: There were 1786 orthopaedic surgery applicants from 2017 to 2024. In the first two years of signaling, the mean applications decreased by 23 (p < 0.001), interview offers decreased by three (p < 0.001), publications increased by one (p < 0.001), and volunteer experiences decreased by one (p < 0.001). When compared with the first year, the second year of signaling decreased applications by 15 (p < 0.001), decreased interviews by one (p = 0.030), decreased volunteer experiences by four (p < 0.001), and decreased publications by one (p = 0.015). There was no significant difference in match rate. Conclusions: Orthopaedic surgery preference signaling after two years significantly decreased mean applications, interview opportunities, and extracurricular experiences of applicants without affecting match success. These findings suggest that preference signaling continues to be an effective method at reducing application volume for programs and applicants while creating equitable opportunities for applicants after two years. Level of Evidence: Level III-Retrospective Cohort Study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.