ArticleJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2026
Matched and Measured: An In-depth Look at the Interventional Cardiology Fellowship Match-Fellows' Perspective.
Article in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In July 2024, the interventional cardiology (IC) fellowship match transitioned to the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) to streamline recruitment and ensure transparency. Our prior analysis explored the program directors' (PDs) experiences, revealing positive perceptions despite initial concerns. This current study addresses a critical limitation of the previous work by incorporating the applicants' perspective. The aim of this study is to investigate perceptions of fellows who participated in the IC fellowship for the NRMP match cycles. Methods: This descriptive study utilized data from publicly available NRMP and Electronic Residency Application Services along with our survey to evaluate the IC fellowship match from the fellows' perspective. An anonymous online survey was distributed to fellows to gather quantitative and qualitative data. Survey topics included questions about interviews, ranking, and factors influencing rank lists, and satisfaction with the new match system. Results: An anonymous national fellow survey was completed by 38% (N = 96) of IC fellows, most of whom were applicants to the 2026-2027 IC fellowship match. Seventy percent applied to >30 programs, with the majority receiving >15 invitations. Rank list depth varied, although most applicants ranked multiple programs, most commonly 6 to 10 (30%) or >15 (28%). Prematch offers were rare (13%), and 78% of applicants preferred training at external institutions, whereas the majority preferred virtual interviews. Qualitative responses emphasized procedural volume, program reputation, mentorship, and culture as key drivers of ranking decisions, whereas challenges included limited program information, inconsistent communication, uncertainty around prematch activity, and stress. Conclusions: The transition to the NRMP match for IC fellowships presented both successes and challenges from the fellows' viewpoint, complementing the PDs' perspectives documented previously. Our study helps highlight challenges in future IC match.
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.