ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Perspectives of program directors regarding candidate selection for the Saudi Board of Restorative Dentistry program.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Program directors (PDs) play a crucial role in selecting candidates for the Saudi Board of Restorative Dentistry (SBRD) program. However, their views on selection and possible differences in opinions based on candidate characteristics remain unelucidated. Methods: This study surveyed restorative dentistry PDs in Saudi Arabia using a pre-validated questionnaire consisting of 30 questions grouped into seven domains to gather views on the selection process for the SBRD program. Responses from 30 participants were analyzed using means and standard deviations. We examined differences in PD variables, such as sex and years of experience using Student's Results: The top preferences of the PDs were working as service residents, skill and reputation during electives, and dressing well for interviews. Electives abroad, multiple recommendation letters, and being on the dean's honor list were less important. Interview was the most favored domain (4.04 ± 0.78), followed by service and electives (4.01 ± 0.47); recommendations were the least favored (3.41 ± 0.77). While differences existed among variables, they weren't statistically significant, except for the interview domain ( Conclusion: PDs showed diverse responses to all evaluated factors. Interviews and service/electives were most preferred. Service residencies, skills/reputation during electives, and being well dressed during interviews were favored for candidate selection. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously, given the potential limitations of statistical power associated with relatively small sample size.
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.