Vascular surgery integrated resident selection criteria in the pass or fail era

Sorour, Ahmed A.; Kirksey, Levester; Caputo, Francis J.; Dehaini, Hassan; Bena, James; Rowe, Vincent L.; Colglazier, Jill J.; Smith, Brigitte K.; Shames, Murray L.; Lyden, Sean P.

doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2022.08.012

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thirty-four studies 4,7-14,16-22,24-29,32-36,39,41-44,46,49 included in the systematic review examined perceptions among PDs regarding the importance of Step 2 due to the score change, of which 12 studies 7,9,11,12,19-21,24,28,29,32,41 qualified for the meta-analysis (Table 2) (see Table, Supplemental Digital Content 11, which provides further details on data presentation and study exclusion rationale). The meta-analysis showed that 88.4% (95% CI, 86.5%-90.3%; I 2 = 44.1%) of all PDs agreed that Step 2 will increase in importance, with low heterogeneity and low publication bias (see Table, Supplemental Digital Content 3; see Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 4) among studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty-nine studies 4,7,9-15,17,19-30,32-35,41,44,49 included in the systematic review examined perceptions among PDs regarding the importance of medical school attended due to the score change, of which 12 studies 7,9,10,12,19-21,24,28,29,32,35 qualified for the meta-analysis (Table 2) (see Table, Supplemental Digital Content 14, which provides further details on data presentation and study exclusion rationale). The meta-analysis showed that 59.3% (95% CI, 53.6%-65.6%; I 2 = 74.6%) of all PDs agreed that medical school attended would become more important moving forward, with high heterogeneity and low publication bias (see Table,Supplemental Digital Content 3; see Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 4) among studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After the initial search, 351 duplicates were removed and 44 were excluded after title and abstract review, 4,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Full-text review was performed on 98 articles, [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] of which 45 studies were included [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] (see Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 5, which illustrates a flow-chart of our literature search, as well as our full search strategies).…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirty-four studies 4,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][24][25][26][27][28][29][32][33][34][35][36]39,[41][42][43][44]46,49 included in the systematic review examined perceptions among PDs regarding the importance of Step 2 due to the score change, of which 12 studies 7,9,11,12,[19][20][21]24,28,29,32,41 qualified for the meta-analysis ( 3). Twenty-three studies 7,9-13,15-17,19-24,28,29,32,33,41,42,44,46 included in the systematic review examined perceptions among PDs regarding whether Step 2 will become required due to the score change, of which 12 studies 7,…”

Section: Medical Student Well-beingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Perceptions and Expectations Regarding the Step 1 Score Change Among Surgical and Non-Surgical Program Directors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Srinivasan,

Samaan,

Premkumar

et al. 2024

The American Surgeon™

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are currently no studies examining differences in perceptions and expected impact of the Step 1 score change to pass/fail between surgical and non-surgical program directors (PDs). We conducted a systematic review in May 2023 of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and PSYCInfo to evaluate studies examining PDs’ perspectives regarding the Step 1 score change. We performed random-effects meta-analyses to determine differences in perspectives among surgical and non-surgical PDs. Surgical PDs (76.8% [95% CI, 72.1%-82.0%], I2 = 52%) reported significantly greater rates of disagreement with the score change compared to non-surgical (65.1% [95% CI, 57.9%-73.1%], I2 = 69.7%) ( P = .01). Surgical PDs also reported significantly greater rates of agreement that the score change will increase the difficulty in objectively comparing applicants (88.1% [95% CI, 84.6%-91.7%], I2 = 16.4%), compared to non-surgical (81.0% [95% CI, 75.6%-86.8%], I2 = 72.6%) ( P = .04). There was less heterogeneity among non-surgical PDs (88.7% [95% CI, 86.2%-91.2%], I2 = 0%), compared to surgical (84.7% [95% CI, 79.0%-90.8%], I2 = 67.3%), regarding expected increases in emphasis on Step 2, although the difference in rates of agreement was not statistically significant. Overall, there is significant heterogeneity in the literature regarding expected changes in the residency application review process. Most PDs reported significant disagreement with the score change, greater expected difficulty in objectively evaluating applicants, and greater emphasis on Step 2, with surgical PDs reporting greater rates of disagreement, greater expected difficulty, and heterogeneity regarding expected increases in emphasis on Step 2, compared to non-surgical. Additionally, there is significant heterogeneity in the overall literature regarding expected changes in the residency application review process. Further research is needed to establish evidence-based guidelines that improve the overall residency application process for all stakeholders.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Medical Student Well-beingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Perceptions and Expectations Regarding the Step 1 Score Change Among Surgical and Non-Surgical Program Directors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Srinivasan,

Samaan,

Premkumar

et al. 2024

The American Surgeon™

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies indicate that program directors in surgical specialties now place greater emphasis on LORs. [1][2][3][4] This prompted us to explore the use of artificial intelligence (AI), specifically ChatGPT, to objectively assess LORs and aid application reviews. However, the results revealed some challenges in discerning nuanced differences that reviewers may encounter.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%