ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2026
Face-to-face or screen-to-screen: gynecologic oncology fellowship interview applicant perspectives on interview format.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 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
Background: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2020 the medical community modified residency and fellowship interview processes to a virtual-only format. The 2023 application cycle marked the first year that any gynecologic oncology fellowship interviews returned to an in-person format with two programs conducting in-person interviews. Objective: This study evaluated the perspectives of gynecologic oncology fellowship applicants on in-person and virtual interview formats to inform programs' decision-making around future interview cycles. Methods: Applicant lists from three gynecologic oncology fellowship programs were compiled from the 2023 application cycle. An anonymous survey regarding applicant perspectives on the interview process was electronically distributed. Results: There was a 56% (47/86) response rate. Applicants applied to a median of 50 programs (IQR 42-60), accepted 24 interviews (IQR 20-32), declined 4 interviews (IQR 2-9), and attended 24 interviews (IQR 17-24). Thirty (64%) applicants attended at least one in-person interview. Among the 30 applicants who experienced both interview formats, in-person interviews resulted in a better understanding of the program's geography, culture, and hospital facilities (p < 0.0001). Applicants who attended in-person interviews were more satisfied with their interview experience, found it easier to interpret body language, and were better able to connect with other applicants and form personal connections with interviewers (p < 0.0001). Of applicants who experienced both formats, 53% preferred in-person format. Conclusion: Applicants who participated in both interview formats reported higher satisfaction and connected better with other applicants and interviewers with in-person interviews; however, there was only a slight (53%) preference for in-person format.
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.