SynthesisBMC medical education2025
The impact of preference signaling on interview and match rate for surgical match in resident education: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
backgroundThe residency matching process has become increasingly competitive across surgical subspecialties, with "interview hoarding" exacerbating resource inefficiencies and systemic inefficiencies in candidate selection. Traditional reliance on non-standardized metrics-particularly USMLE Step 1 scores, institutional prestige, and geographic connections-has further compounded equity concerns in the matching ecosystem. Preference signaling mechanisms have emerged as a standardized solution to enhance both matching efficiency and fairness, though current evidence remains limited by single-specialty studies and insufficient examination of long-term match outcomes.
methodsStudies on the preference signaling mechanism in surgical subspecialties published after 2020 were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases. Eleven high-quality retrospective cohort studies involving 10,448 applicants were included. Meta-analysis was performed to compare interview and match rates between signal and non-signal groups, with subgroup analyses assessing the impacts of specialty, data source, and other factors.
resultsTotally, eleven studies with 10,488 patients were included for meta-analyses. The interview rate in the signal group was 9.30 times higher than that in the non-signal group (95% CI 7.72-10.89), though substantial heterogeneity was observed across specialties (I
conclusionsThis meta-analysis confirms that the preference signaling mechanism significantly enhances interview rates and match rates in resident matching, demonstrating dual value in optimizing efficiency and promoting equity across surgical specialties. By providing cross-specialty evidence for system optimization, this study advances the preference signaling system toward greater efficiency and fairness in the residency matching process.
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.