ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Applicant Selection and Ranking in Breast Surgical Oncology Fellowships: A National Survey of Program Leadership.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 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
backgroundBreast surgical oncology was the most competitive surgical fellowship match in 2025, with a record low of 61% of applicants successfully matched. Previous studies evaluated the attitudes of program directors on the selection and ranking criteria of candidates. This study evaluates the perspectives of both program directors and associate program directors on the selection and ranking process because of the increasing competitiveness of the field.
methodsAn anonymous, web-based survey was sent to all breast surgical oncology fellowship program leadership. The survey consisted of 24 questions. Survey analysis was performed using descriptive statistics.
resultsOf 65 programs, 76.9% responded; 50 program directors and 26 associate program directors participated. Over half of programs (57.9%) engaged in holistic review of applicants before offering an interview and did not have formal screening criteria. For most programs (84%), additional faculty members beyond program leadership contributed to the rank list. Interview performance was the most important factor (65.8%) in the formation of the rank list. DISCUSSION: Compared with prior years, breast surgical oncology fellowship directors reported fewer screening metrics before extending an interview. In rank list formation, there continues to be a strong majority consensus with previous years and among other surgical subspecialties that interview performance has the largest impact. An improved understanding of the application and rank list process enables both applicants and program directors to better prepare for a successful match.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42423938What 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.