ArticleCureus2026
A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Online Information Available to Prospective Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Fellowship Applicants.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Otolaryngology residents seeking training in facial plastic and reconstructive surgery (FPRS) often rely on the internet to assess potential fellowship programs. Despite this, the availability and reliability of content provided on FPRS websites have not been assessed. Methodology In this cross-sectional study, the 2023 American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (AAFPRS) Handbook was used as a comprehensive registry of existing FPRS fellowship programs. All 65 listed programs (100%) were evaluated against 29 predefined criteria and compared with their associated program-created websites to assess the availability of applicant-relevant information. Descriptive analyses were used for categorical criteria, Fisher's exact test was applied to compare website presence by program type, and Wilcoxon rank-sum testing was used for continuous measures of criteria reporting. Results Of the 65 FPRS fellowship programs listed, 43 (66.2%) had an associated program-created website. Overall, program-created websites reported significantly fewer applicant-relevant criteria than the AAFPRS Handbook, fulfilling an average of 9.8 of 29 criteria (33.9%) compared with 15.6 of 29 criteria (53.8%), respectively (p < 0.05). The AAFPRS Handbook provided more consistent reporting of core program characteristics, but did not include information on current fellows, fellowship graduates, the number of fellowship positions, interview details, or program coordinator contact information. In contrast, program-created websites more frequently reported applicant-centered information, including current fellows (44.2%), fellowship graduate placement (23.3%), and the number of fellowship positions (29.3%). In stratified analyses, university-affiliated programs were significantly more likely to maintain a program-created website than private practice-based programs (75.5% vs. 25.0%, p < 0.05). Among programs with websites, private practice-based fellowships reported substantially fewer applicant-relevant criteria than academic-affiliated programs (16.1% vs. 35.2% of the total criteria fulfilled, p < 0.05). Conclusions FPRS fellowship websites and data from the AAFPRS lack many key criteria valued by prospective applicants. Private practice-based fellowships are notably underrepresented online, which may limit applicants' ability to gather information about programs outside of the academic arena.
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.