ReviewJB & JS open access
The Evolving Effects of Preference Signaling in the Orthopaedic Residency Match: Outcomes After the Second Year of Preference Signaling Implementation.
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 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.
- More Signals, Fewer Applications: Calibrating Preference Signaling for Residency Application.Journal of graduate medical education · 2026Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the inaugural year of preference signaling in the orthopaedic match, our team surveyed applicants and program leaders (program directors, assistant program directors, and program coordinators), with results demonstrating reduced application volume and signal concentration compared with specialties with fewer signals. However, it remained unclear how trends would evolve as both parties became aware of each other's behavior. This study evaluates the evolving effects of preference signaling in its second year. Methods: Mixed-method surveys were adapted from our initial study and distributed to American Orthopaedic Association/Council of Orthopaedic Residency Directors member program leaders and applicants registered for the Electronic Standardized Letter of Recommendation following Universal Interview Offer Day 2023 (Fall Survey) and Match Day 2024 (Spring Survey). Results: Ninety-five program leaders (49%) and 311 applicants (28%) completed the Fall Survey, and 119 program leaders (61%) and 365 applicants (30%) completed the Spring Survey. While response rates are aligned with other similar survey studies, results are subject to nonresponder bias. Applicants submitted an average of 61 applications for Match 2024, significantly lower than 84 for Match 2023 (p < 0.001). The number of interviews received per applicant dropped to 10.8 from 11.7 for Match 2023 (p = 0.27). Only 3% of interviews went to nonsignaling, nonrotating students, down from 14% for Match 2023 (p < 0.001). A total of 96% of applicants matched at a signaled institution. There was a decrease in the variance in the number of interview invitations reported by applicants (p = 0.001) and in signal concentration, with 50% of signals concentrated among 32% of programs, compared with 27% for Match 2023. Conclusion: In the second year of signaling, application volume continued to decrease, with modest improvements in signal and interview concentration. Signals are being increasingly used as screening tools, and applicants predominantly interview and match at signaled programs.
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.