ArticleBMJ open2025
Bridging the representation gap in the surgical workforce: a scoping review protocol of programmes and interventions to support surgical careers for underrepresented minority learners.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Match Rates for a Surgical Mentorship Program for Underrepresented Learners.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Demystifying Surgical Training in the UK: A Trainee-Led Global Teaching Initiative for Surgical Career Aspirants.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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite increasing proportions of underrepresented minority (URM) medical school graduates, their progression into surgical training and leadership remains disproportionately low. Barriers such as financial constraints, limited mentorship and implicit bias contribute to this disparity, creating a disconnect between the diversity of patient populations and those providing care. While interventions such as mentorship programmes and pipeline initiatives have been implemented, their overall effectiveness has not been systematically evaluated. The primary aim of this scoping review is to map the current landscape of interventions, programmes and policies designed to enhance access to surgical careers for URM learners. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Searches will be conducted on EMBASE, Web of Science and OVID MEDLINE. Three independent reviewers will screen references, extract data and perform analyses with disagreements adjudicated by a fourth reviewer. This review will include studies conducted across all levels of training: secondary (high school or secondary school), postsecondary (undergraduate, medical school) and postgraduate (residency, fellowship), with no geographical restrictions. The definition of URM will be accepted as reported within each individual study, allowing for variability in racial, ethnic, gender, socioeconomic or other criteria. The review will include any structured interventions, programmes or policies aimed at increasing URM representation in surgical education. Data on the nature, duration and target population of each intervention will be extracted. The primary outcome will be the reported impact of interventions on URM representation or participation in surgical education. Secondary outcomes will include characteristics of the study participants, definitions of URM status and any qualitative or quantitative evaluations of intervention effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required under University of Toronto policy. Study results will be reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Results will be disseminated to relevant stakeholders at conference presentation(s) and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
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.