ArticleCureus2025
A Pilot Study of Orthopedic Applicants Regarding Sub-internship Number, Cost, and Preferences.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective This pilot study surveyed orthopedic applicants regarding their experience with sub-internship (sub-I) rotations (number, cost, and selection criteria), seeking to identify potential barriers, and their implications for residency selection for future study. Methods Applicants to two orthopedic residencies in the Philadelphia area received surveys regarding the number/cost of sub-Is, factors affecting rotation site selection, and the influence of people/experiences on the rank list. Surveys were available between the rank list certification deadline and the match week. Results One hundred ninety out of 936 (20.3%) applicants completed the survey. One hundred thirty-three (70%) respondents completed ≥4 rotations (inclusive of home rotations). Osteopathic applicants completed more rotations than allopathic applicants (mean {M}=5.1 versus 3.8, p<0.001). Fifty-seven (30.0%) respondents stated that their rotation time was limited by cost, with 116 (61.1%) reporting a monthly cost of >$1600. Factors that were most important to applicants when selecting a rotation site were geographic location (4.8), program reputation (3.9), and word of mouth (3.8), while factors that were less important to applicants included social media presence (1.9), scholarship opportunities (2.1), and program website (2.5). Women valued program diversity more than men (3.6 versus 2.5, p<0.001). Residents (4.8) were the most influential people when determining rank order. Conclusions Current orthopedic applicants may be completing more sub-Is at a greater cost. Larger, nationally representative samples should seek to confirm these findings and determine whether sub-Is represent a barrier to entry in orthopedics. Our findings also highlight applicant preferences when selecting sub-Is and determining rank order. This should help programs better direct recruitment efforts and provide a more applicant-focused rotation experience.
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.