ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Preference Signaling in Plastic Surgery: A Survey of Applicants' Perceptions and Experience.
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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Integrated plastic surgery residency is among the most competitive specialties. This study explores applicant attitudes and perspectives on the use of preference signaling, including factors influencing signal allocation, perceived effects on interviews and match outcomes, and variables guiding rank list decisions. Methods: Two surveys were distributed to applicants during the 2024-2025 application cycle. The first survey, distributed before interview invitations, assessed applicant demographics, signaling strategies, and perceptions of the signaling process. The second survey, distributed after rank list submission, evaluated factors influencing ranking decisions and the perceived importance of application components in the residency match. Descriptive statistics summarized quantitative data, whereas qualitative responses underwent thematic analysis to identify common patterns and themes in applicant responses. Results: Eighty-two applicants completed the initial survey (22% response rate), and 50 completed the follow-up survey (14%). Nearly all respondents (97.5%) used all 10 available signals, with geographic location, program culture, and subinternship experience as the most common factors influencing allocation. Half of applicants reported being advised not to signal programs where they had completed a subinternship. Although most viewed signaling as important, uncertainty persisted regarding its impact on interviews and match outcomes. When generating final rank lists, applicants prioritized location, faculty interactions during interview day, and perceived resident happiness and cohesiveness. Conclusions: Preference signaling is widely used and valued by applicants, but inconsistencies in program expectations and uncertainty regarding its impact persist. Standardized guidelines and transparency are needed to ensure equitable implementation and optimize signaling effectiveness in the integrated plastic surgery match.
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.