Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41859501›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026

The Residency Applicant Numeric Key Tool for Structured Comparison Across Plastic Surgery Programs.

Ambika Menon, Albert Losken, Orr Shauly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ambika MenonFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Albert LoskenFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Orr ShaulyFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plastic surgery residency applicants face a high-stakes, emotionally charged decision-how to rank the programs at which they have interviewed. Although programs evaluate applicants using structured interview processes, application metrics, and faculty consensus, applicants' program assessments are often subjective, inconsistent, and influenced by emotion, perceived (and sometimes misplaced) prestige, or recency bias. Despite the personal and professional consequences of an ill-informed rank list, there is no standardized framework to help applicants objectively compare programs. We propose the Residency Applicant Numeric Key (RANK) tool to standardize program evaluation for plastic surgery residency applicants. RANK uses a head-to-head scoring approach that prompts applicants to rate each program across 10 domains, including case volume, surgical autonomy, county and community hospital exposure, case diversity, program culture, global surgery, research, location, and other applicant-specific factors. Each domain is scored on a 1-5 scale. Domain scores are summed to generate an overall score, enabling direct numerical comparison and organized ranking across programs. The RANK tool provides a consistent structure to support objective, side-by-side evaluation while preserving room for individualized priorities through domain selection and weighting.

Identifiers

PMID41859501
PMCPMC12999150

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.