Determining the Most Important Factors Involved in Ranking Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Applicants

Predicting academic productivity among American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons fellowship faculty from publications acquired before and during surgical training

BACKGROUND

Orthopedic residency and fellowship applicants with a strong research record are highly valued for their potential in continuing academic excellence. Despite this, the association between research productivity during training and future academic productivity as an attending orthopedic surgeon is not well-established. We assess the effects of research output during different periods of surgical training as well as residency location on long-term academic productivity as an attending shoulder and elbow surgeon.

METHODS

A search of the 2022-2023 American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Fellowship Directory was conducted to identify a list of orthopedic shoulder and elbow fellowship faculty members. Each surgeon's residency, fellowship and current institution of practice were determined and stratified by geographic location. Total publication counts acquired before residency, during residency, during fellowship, and after fellowship were collected for each faculty member. Attending publication rates and H-indices were calculated. A multivariate linear regression model was created, and significance was set at a P value <.05.

RESULTS

A total of 149 shoulder and elbow fellowship faculty members representing 34 fellowship programs were identified. The average number of total publications per surgeon was 88.8 ± 102. The average attending publication rate was 5.29 ± 6.89 publications per year. The average H-index for included surgeons was 27.8 ± 24.4. The number of publications acquired before residency (β = 0.293; P < .001), during residency (β = 0.110; P = .025) and during fellowship (β = 0.593; P < .001) were significantly associated with an increased attending publication rate, but no association was observed with the H-index [before residency (β = -0.221; P = .574), during residency (β = 0.045; P = .866), during fellowship (β = 0.198; P = .678)]. There were no significant differences in total publication count (P = .397), attending publication rate (P = .237), or H-index (P = .364) based on location of residency training.

DISCUSSION

Research output before and during surgical training is predictive of continued academic productivity as a shoulder and elbow surgeon. In particular, greater productivity during surgical fellowship was most predictive of academic output as an attending. While long-term academic productivity does not seem to be influenced by the geographic location of residency training, attending surgeons practicing in the Midwest had significantly greater total publication counts and H-indices but similar annual publication rates.

Factors Related to Clinical Performance in Spine Surgery Fellowship: Can We Predict Success

INTRODUCTION

The factors most important in the spine fellowship match may not ultimately correlate with quality of performance during fellowship. This study examined the spine fellow applicant metrics correlated with high application rank compared with the metrics associated with the strongest clinical performance during fellowship.

METHODS

Spine fellow applications at three academic institutions were retrieved from the San Francisco Match database (first available to 2021) and deidentified for application review. Application metrics pertaining to research, academics, education, extracurriculars, leadership, examinations, career interests, and letter of recommendations were extracted. Attending spine surgeons involved in spine fellow selection at their institutions were sent a survey to rank (1) fellow applicants based on their perceived candidacy and (2) the strength of performance of their previous fellows. Pearson correlation assessed the associations of application metrics with theoretical fellow rank and actual performance.

RESULTS

A total of 37 spine fellow applications were included (Institution A: 15, Institution B: 12, Institution C: 10), rated by 14 spine surgeons (Institution A: 6, Institution B: 4, Institution C: 4). Theoretical fellow rank demonstrated a moderate positive association with overall research, residency program rank, recommendation writer H-index, US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores, and journal reviewer positions. Actual fellow performance demonstrated a moderate positive association with residency program rank, recommendation writer H-index, USMLE scores, and journal reviewer positions. Linear regressions identified journal reviewer positions (ß = 1.73, P = 0.002), Step 1 (ß = 0.09, P = 0.010) and Step 3 (ß = 0.10, P = 0.002) scores, recommendation writer H-index (ß = 0.06, P = 0.029, and ß = 0.07, P = 0.006), and overall research (ß = 0.01, P = 0.005) as predictors of theoretical rank. Recommendation writer H-index (ß = 0.21, P = 0.030) and Alpha Omega Alpha achievement (ß = 6.88, P = 0.021) predicted actual performance.

CONCLUSION

Residency program reputation, USMLE scores, and a recommendation from an established spine surgeon were important in application review and performance during fellowship. Research productivity, although important during application review, was not predictive of fellow performance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort Study.

Publication Rates of Podium Presentations at an Annual Orthopedic Surgery Resident and Fellow Research Symposium

Introduction Research is an important aspect of residency and fellowship programs across the country. Developing strategies to foster research productivity is worthwhile. An annual research project is one strategy that some programs implement. Methods All resident and fellow (Sports Medicine, Adult Reconstruction, Spine) presentations at an orthopedic surgery department's annual research symposium from June 2016 through June 2021 were identified. Abstract titles, title keywords, and author names were searched in PubMed and Google Scholar to identify the presence of a peer-reviewed publication. Using the total number of research symposium presentations given, the publication rate was calculated for each year, as well as collectively for 2016 to 2021. In addition to publication rate, first author percent, number of citations, Altmetric score, and journal impact factor were recorded. Current PGY-2 through PGY-5 residents completed a survey to assess the perceived value of the annual research symposium. Results Ninety-eight research symposium presentations were reviewed (69 residents, 29 fellows). Forty (58%) resident studies were published and 28 were first-author publications (70%). Thirteen (45%) fellow studies were published and seven were first-author publications (54%). Combining residents and fellows, the overall publication rate was 54% (53/98), and 66% of these (35/53) were first-author publications. There was a wide range of published manuscript journal impact factors, Altmetric scores, and number of citations. All residents surveyed reported finding value in the research symposium. Conclusion The overall publication rate of presentations at an annual orthopedic surgery department research symposium between 2016 and 2021 was 54%, consistent with publication rates reported at National Orthopedic Surgery Society meetings. All residents reported finding value in the annual research symposium. The results of this study support the academic value of implementing a required annual research project and may provide a useful gauge to inform residency and fellowship curricula at other institutions.

Virtual Interviews Are Not Adequate Replacements for In-Person Interviews for Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Program Directors and Applicants

Purpose

To understand the opinions of both orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship program directors (PDs) and applicants regarding the utility of virtual interviews in comparison to in-person interviews following the 2022-2023 application cycle.

Methods

An anonymous online survey was distributed through the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine to applicants and PDs of orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs. Questions in the survey included how the virtual format affected the applicants' personal connection to the program, the interview day structure, and costs associated with the interview process.

Results

Responses were received from 69 of 93 PDs (74%) and 97 of 266 applicants (36%). Ninety-five percent of PDs (59 of 62) preferred in-person interviews, compared to 79% of applicants (70 of 89). Ninety-eight percent of PDs (60 of 61) and 82% of applicants (72 of 88) thought it was important/very important to interview in-person. Sixty-one percent of PDs (35 of 57) and 49% of applicants agreed/strongly agreed that conducting virtual interviews negatively affected their personal connection with the fellowship interviewee/program. The presence of virtual interviews allowed 50% (43 of 86) of applicants to go on more interviews. Thirty-two percent (18 of 57) of fellowship programs saved up to $5,000 conducting virtual interviews, and 85% (69 of 81) of applicants saved up to $5,000 on travel expenses by attending virtual interviews.

Conclusions

Virtual interviews allow fellowship applicants to complete more interviews and presented financial savings for both programs and applicants. However, both PDs and applicants stated that interviewing in-person is essential for applicants to meet faculty and tour the facilities.

Clinical Relevance

This study may be valuable to fellowship programs considering continued use of virtual interviews.

What Are the Trends in Research Publication Misrepresentation Among Orthopaedic Residency and Fellowship Applicants From 1996 to 2019? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Because research experience is increasingly important in ranking orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants, determining the accuracy of candidates reporting their scholarly activity is essential. However, disparate and inconsistent findings have made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from individual studies.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this systematic review, we asked: (1) What percentage of research publications are misrepresented among orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants? (2) What percentage of applications contain one or more example of academic misrepresentation? (3) Is research misrepresentation associated with any individual applicant characteristics? (4) What is the publication status of articles listed by applicants as having been submitted to journals?

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. PubMed, EBSCOhost, Medline, and Google Scholar electronic databases were searched on March 10, 2022, to identify all studies that evaluated research misrepresentation in orthopaedic residency and fellowship applications between January 1, 1995, and March 1, 2022. Articles were included if full-text articles in English were available and the study reported on research misrepresentation among orthopaedic residency or fellowship applicants. Studies investigating nonorthopaedic publications, systematic reviews, case studies, duplicate studies among databases, and gray literature were excluded. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of included studies using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) tool. This is a validated assessment tool that grades noncomparative studies from 0 to 16 and studies with control groups from 0 to 24, based on eight criteria related to study design, outcomes assessed, and follow-up. All included articles were noncomparative studies, so the maximum score here was 16, with higher scores indicating better study quality. The mean MINORS score was 13 ± 1 in the studies we included. The final analysis included 10 studies with 5119 applicants. Eight studies evaluated orthopaedic residency applicants and two evaluated fellowship applicants. The applicant classes ranged from 1996 to 2019. Research misrepresentation was defined among studies as nonauthorship of an existing article, claimed authorship of a nonexistent article, or incorrect listing of authorship order for an existing article. Each study's findings and definition of research misrepresentation were considered to allow for a discussion of overall trends. The percentage of misrepresentation was further broken down by the misrepresentation type. Applicant characteristics and destination of submitted articles were also evaluated. Given the potential overlap between applicants among the studies, no pooled analysis was conducted, and results are presented as a narrative summary.

RESULTS

The percentage of overall publication misrepresentation was estimated to range between 1% (13 of 1100) and 21% (27 of 131), with more-recent studies reporting a lower proportion of overall articles misrepresented. Most studies we found claimed that authorship of a nonexistent article was the most common type of misrepresentation. Nonauthorship of an existing article and incorrect authorship order were less common. The percentage of applications with at least one misrepresentation was approximately 20% between 1998 and 2017. Most studies found no applicant characteristics, such as match outcomes, demographic markers, or academic records, that were consistently associated with a higher odds of the candidate misrepresenting his or her research credentials. Finally, approximately half of the articles listed as submitted to journals went on to publication, with one-third going to a different journal with a lower Impact Factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review found that the percentage of overall publication misrepresentations among orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants has generally been low over the past 20 years. However, approximately one-fifth of applications had at least one research misrepresentation, with 2% having multiple misrepresentations on reported publications. There were no consistent applicant characteristics associated with higher odds of research misrepresentation. Additionally, most of the articles listed as submitted to journals for publication were ultimately published.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Although the decrease in overall publication misrepresentation is encouraging, our finding that one-fifth of applicants have research misrepresentation is a cause for concern. In light of a continually evolving application process, orthopaedic residency and fellowship programs must ensure there is integrity related to information that is self-reported by applicants. These findings also serve to encourage faculty members involved in the application screening and decision process to limit biases related to applicant demographics perceived to be associated with a high odds of misrepresentation. Furthermore, governing agencies and program leadership should evaluate methods of verifying unpublished work and provide opportunities for applicants to give publication updates throughout the application cycle.

Are Orthopedic Fellowship Programs Giving Out Too Many Interviews? A Retrospective Analysis Suggests They Are

Background: The orthopedic surgery fellowship match process is associated with substantial stress and expense, yet the optimal number of interviews for fellowships to offer has not been evaluated. Purpose: We sought to evaluate the number of orthopedic surgery fellowship interviews given and construct a model to determine the appropriate number of interviews to offer based on specialty and program size. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 6 orthopedic fellowship specialties; data were obtained from San Francisco Match and covered the 5-year period from 2014 to 2018. The orthopedic fellowship subspecialties included adult reconstruction/oncology, foot and ankle, pediatrics, spine, sports medicine, and trauma. We excluded shoulder and elbow (less than 5 years of data) and hand and upper extremity (alternative matching process). Parameters included number of programs, number of spots per program, number of ranked applicants per program (mean ± SD), and difference in number of interviews offered and ranked applicants per program (mean ± SD). Multiple regression analysis was used to create an equation for determining the optimal number of interviews for the programs. Results: Of 1377 orthopedic fellowship programs analyzed, 1370 (99.50%) conducted interviews beyond the number of ranked applicants. Programs ranked an overall mean of 20.10 ± 10.17 applicants with an overall mean of 11.60 ± 8.62 additional interviews offered. Sports medicine had the highest mean ranked applicants (23.21 ± 9.77) and pediatrics had the lowest mean ranked applicants (15.74 ± 7.76). The most additional interviews were given in adult reconstruction (14.80 ± 9.92) and the least were given in pediatrics (8.32 ± 7.17). The predictive equation was reported as Y = β1x1 + β2x2 (Y = ranked applicants, x1 = spots open, and x2 = last rank). Conclusion: Programs in 6 orthopedic subspecialties in the fellowship match process appear to consistently offer more interviews than necessary. We have developed a model to help programs predict the optimal number of fellowship applicants to interview. Future studies need to validate the model, especially with anticipated increases of the virtual interview format.

The Top 10 Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Programs in the United States Frequently Select Fellowship Applicants From the Same Residency Programs

Purpose

To determine which residency programs the fellows of the top 10 orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs attended and whether residents are selected from the same residency programs multiple years.

Methods

The residency programs of current and former fellows at each of the top 10 orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs (based on a recent study) over the last 5 to 10 years was determined by searching program websites and/or contacting program coordinators/directors. For each program, we determined the number of occurrences of at least 3 to 5 fellows from the same residency program. We also calculated a "pipelining ratio," defined as the ratio of the total number of fellows at the program over the duration of the study to the number of different residency programs represented within the fellowship program during that same time period.

Results

Data were obtained from 7 of the top 10 fellowship programs. Of the remaining 3 programs, 1 declined to provide the information and 2 did not respond. Pipelining was found to be highly prevalent at one program, with a pipelining ratio of 1.9. Two different residency programs had at least 5 residents match at this fellowship program over the past 10 years. Four additional programs demonstrated evidence of pipelining with ratios of 1.4-1.5. Two programs exhibited minimal pipelining (ratio of 1.1). One program was found to take 2 residents from the same program in the same year on 3 different occasions.

Conclusions

Most of the top orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs have matched fellows from the same orthopaedic surgery residency programs in multiple years.

Clinical Relevance

It is important to understand how fellows are selected for sports medicine fellowship programs and to recognize the potential for inequitable bias in the selection process.

Program and Faculty Reputation Are Valued Most by Applicants to Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowships

Purpose

To determine the top orthopaedic surgery sports medicine fellowship programs in the United States and the most important aspects of fellowship programs as perceived by applicants.

Methods

An anonymous survey was distributed via e-mail and text message to all current/former orthopaedic surgery residents who applied to one particular orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship program during the 2017-2018 through 2021-2022 application cycles. The survey asked applicants to rank what they considered to be the top-10 orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs in the United States before and after completion of their application cycle, based on operative and nonoperative experience, faculty, game coverage, research, and work-life balance. Final rank was calculated by awarding 10 points for a first-place vote, 9 points for a second-place vote, etc., with total number of points used to determine final ranking for each program. Secondary outcomes included rates of applying to perceived top-10 programs, relative importance of different fellowship program aspects, and preferred type of practice.

Results

Seven-hundred sixty-one surveys were distributed with 107 applicants responding (14% response rate). Applicants voted the top orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships programs to be: (1) Steadman Philippon Research Institute, (2) Rush University Medical Center, and (3) Hospital for Special Surgery, both before and following the application cycle. When ranking fellowship program aspects, faculty members and fellowship reputation were most likely to be ranked highest in importance.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that most orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship applicants highly valued program reputation and faculty members when choosing a fellowship program and that the application/interview process did not have a substantial effect on how individuals perceived the top programs.

Clinical Relevance

The findings of this study are important for residents applying to orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships and may have implications on fellowship programs and future application cycles.

Orthopaedic Shoulder and Elbow Fellowship Directors in the United States Have Substantial Research Output but Lack Diversity

Purpose

To investigate the characteristics of shoulder and elbow fellowship directors (FDs).

Methods

FDs for shoulder and elbow fellowship programs in the United States were identified. Demographic, educational, and professional background data were collected from available curricula vitarum, institutional biographies, and the Scopus database. Data collected included age, sex, race/ethnicity, training locations, graduation years, advanced degrees, current institutional information, and personal research H-index.

Results

Thirty current orthopaedic shoulder and elbow FDs were identified. The mean Scopus H-index was 25.5. The mean age of FDs was 52.1 years. In total, 29 FDs (96.7%) were male and 1 (3.3%) was female. In addition, 25 of the 30 (83.3%) were White (83.3%), 4 were Asian, and 1 (3.3%) was Hispanic. Two (6.7%) had a military affiliation. Mean time from fellowship training graduation to FD appointment was 13.5 years. Mean number of years as FD was 6.1 years, whereas the number of years tenure with an FD-affiliated institution was 13.0 years. Mean calendar years for completion of orthopaedic residency training and fellowship training were 1998 and 2000, respectively. The residencies that produced the most future FDs were Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (n = 2) and University of Nebraska Medical Center/Creighton University Health Foundation (n = 2). The fellowship that produced the most future FDs was Columbia University (n = 6). Moderate correlation was found between age and Scopus H-index (r = 0.48; P = .04) and years as FD and Scopus H-index (r = 0.42; P = .03).

Conclusions

Women and minorities are under-represented in leadership positions in shoulder and elbow surgery. Shoulder and elbow FDs have the highest H-index of any subspecialty reported in the orthopaedic literature. Research productivity is an important qualification when considering the characteristics of shoulder and elbow FDs.

Clinical Relevance

Fellowship directors can have a profound influence on current and future orthopaedic surgeons. It is important to identify the traits that characterize current fellowship directors to have a better understanding of who we choose as leaders in our field.

Factors Influencing Sports Medicine as a Career Choice Among Orthopaedic Trainees in Saudi Arabia

Background:

Sports medicine is one of the most popular orthopaedic specialties, with more fellowship applicants than in any other subspecialty of orthopaedics.

Purpose:

To investigate the factors influencing orthopaedic trainees to complete their fellowships and subsequently subspecialize in sports medicine in Saudi Arabia, as well as to compare the motivational factors of trainees planning to pursue sports medicine versus other orthopaedic specialties.

Study Design:

Cross-sectional study.

Methods:

An online anonymous questionnaire was distributed to 400 orthopaedic surgical trainees from 44 training centers (residency and fellowship training programs) across Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire identified trainees planning to select sports medicine as their career and the most influential factors affecting their choice; items exploring the influential factors were answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale. A comparison of responses was performed with candidates aiming to pursue other orthopaedic specialties. The chi-square or Fisher exact test was used to compare demographic parameters and the percentage of “agree” and “strongly agree” responses between trainees opting for sports medicine fellowships and those choosing other fellowships.

Results:

Of the 400 potential participants, 250 orthopaedic trainees (response rate, 63%) completed the survey (201 [80%] male and 49 [20%] female). Sports medicine was the most coveted specialty among trainees, with 70 (28%) participants opting for it as their career choice. The most prominent factors for the decision included disease prognosis and surgical outcomes (90%), personal interest (87%), experience during residency training (83%), type of surgical skills (81%), disease pathology and patient population (77%), expected workload and lifestyle (73%), role model or mentor (70%), and patient volume and variety of cases (67%). Significant differences compared with trainees who preferred other orthopaedic specialties included role model/mentor impact (70% vs 54%), expected rate of income (60% vs 47%), and private sector job opportunities (64% vs 45%) (P = .025, .034, and .020, respectively).

Conclusion:

Study findings indicated that a significant percentage of orthopaedic trainees in Saudi Arabia choose to specialize in sports medicine. Role model/mentorship, private sector job opportunities, and expected rate of income were the most influential when compared with the motivations of trainees not choosing sports medicine.

Virtual Pediatric Orthopaedic Fellowship Interviews During the Pandemic: What Did the Applicants and Programs Think?

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic precluded in-person interviews for the 2020-2021 fellowship application cycle and may impact future interview cycles. No information is available detailing the implications of a virtual format on either the interviewee or the fellowship program.

METHODS

Two surveys regarding the 2020-2021 virtual interview season were developed and distributed by the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA) Fellowship Training and Practice Qualifications Committee: one survey for fellowship applicants and one survey for fellowship program directors.

RESULTS

Surveys were completed by 45 pediatric orthopaedic fellowship applicants and 34 fellowship program directors. Nineteen (42.2%) applicants applied to more programs because of the virtual format and 30 (66.7%) applicants accepted more interviews because of the virtual format. Thirty-one (67%) applicants did not feel the virtual interview format negatively affected their match process. Thirty-eight (84.4%) applicants indicated that they saved >$2000 with the virtual format. Approximately half (22/45, 48.5%) of the applicants would keep the fellowship-interview process virtual-even if in-person interviews were possible-whereas 8 (17.8%) applicants would transition back toward in-person interviews.Most program directors utilized online interviews for the first time (n=28, 82.3%) during the 2020-2021 application cycle. Programs interviewed more applicants for the 2020-2021 cycle than in the prior 5 years (19.3 vs. 15.7 applicants, P <0.01), with programs interviewing 10.1 applicants per fellowship position. The majority (n=22, 64.7%) of programs utilized Zoom for the interview platform. Program directors indicated that the applicants were either more accomplished (n=14, 41.2%) or similar in accomplishment (n=20, 58.8%) when compared with the applicants from prior years. Half of the program directors (n=17, 50%) surveyed would utilize virtual interviews next year, even if in-person interviews are possible.

CONCLUSIONS

During the 2020-2021 fellowship application process, interviewees applied to and were interviewed at more programs because of the virtual format, while saving >$2000. In a similar manner, fellowship programs were able to interview a greater number of applicants without adversely impacting the applicant quality. Approximately half of the interviewees and program directors would continue to perform virtual interviews, even if in-person interviews are possible.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V.

Factors Considered in Ranking Pediatric Orthopedic Fellowship Applicants: A Survey of Program Directors

The field of orthopedic surgery continues to grow rapidly in popularity. Ninety percent of orthopedic residents pursue fellowship training after residency, representing the highest rate of subspecialty training among surgical specialties. The goal of this study was to determine the factors considered most important by pediatric orthopedic fellowship program directors (PDs) in evaluating applicants and determining a rank list. A web-based survey was sent to all 42 US pediatric orthopedic fellowship programs. The PDs were contacted through publicly accessible email addresses found on program websites or the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America website. Respondents were asked to indicate the fellowship program size and the number of applicants interviewed and ranked each year. The PDs were then asked to rank a list of 12 factors to reflect the relative importance of these criteria in evaluating fellowship applicants. Three emails were sent: 1 at the initial survey release and 2 reminder emails at 2 and 4 weeks. Surveys were anonymous. The overall response rate was 69% (29 of 42). Of the responding PDs, 48% (14 of 29) indicated that the interview was the most important factor in ranking fellowship applicants, whereas 31% (9 of 29) considered the applicant's letters of recommendation most important. Personal connections to the applicant or letter writer and research experience were each considered most important by 10% of responding PDs. Nearly half (48%) of responding PDs considered in-person interviews the most important factor in ranking fellowship applicants. Our results provide useful information for medical students and orthopedic residents planning to pursue fellowship training in pediatric orthopedics. [Orthopedics. 2022;45(4):e207-210.].

Relative Importance of Applicant Characteristics in Ophthalmology Residency Interview Selection: A Survey of Program Directors

Introduction  Ophthalmology residency positions remain competitive. A lack of clarity regarding which residency selection criteria are prioritized by program directors can heighten the stress associated with the match process. While surveys of program directors in several other medical specialties have been conducted to identify the most important residency selection criteria, there is limited data on selection criteria used by ophthalmology residency program directors. The purpose of our study was to survey ophthalmology residency program directors to identify the current state of interview selection decisions-the factors currently considered most important in determining whether to extend an interview invitation to residency applicants. Methods  We developed and distributed a Web-based questionnaire to all U.S. ophthalmology residency program directors. Questions evaluated program demographics and the relative importance of 23 different selection criteria used by ophthalmology residency program directors when evaluating applicants for residency interviews (Likert scale 1-5, with 1 being "not important" and 5 being "very important"). Program directors were also asked to identify the one factor they felt was most important. Results  The overall residency program director response rate was 56.5% (70/124). The selection criteria with the highest average importance scores were core clinical clerkship grades (4.26/5) followed by letters of recommendation (4.06/5), and United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score (4.03/5). The most frequently cited single most important factor for interview selection was core clinical clerkship grades (18/70, 25.7%), with USMLE Step 1 score (9/70, 12.9%) and rotations at the program director's department (6/70, 8.6%) also commonly reported. Conclusion  Our results suggest that core clinical clerkship grades, letters of recommendation, and USMLE Step 1 scores are deemed the most important selection criteria by ophthalmology residency program directors as of a 2021 survey. With changes in clerkship grading for many medical schools and changes in national USMLE Step 1 score reporting, programs will face challenges in evaluating applicants and the relative importance of other selection criteria will likely increase.

Investigation of Fellowship Leadership in Orthopaedic Musculoskeletal Oncology

Introduction:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

The Effect of Changing Fellowship Interview Format on Candidate Ranking Variabilities: The COVID-19 Experience

Purpose

This study investigated the effect of interview format changes (in-person to virtual, one-to-one to multiple-to-one) necessitated by the COVID-19 travel restrictions on preliminary fellowship candidate ranking variabilities.

Design

Cross-sectional observational study.

Method

In 2018 and 2019, the glaucoma fellowship interviews were conducted in-person in a one-to-one format, whereas in 2020, interviews were virtual and in a multiple (interviewers)-to-one (candidate) format. We compared ranking ranges of interviewers within the same virtual room (WSR) and not within the same virtual room (NWSR) to assess the effect of WSR versus NWSR on ranking variabilities. We also compared ranking categories ("accept," "alternate," and "pass") agreements between 2018, 2019, and 2020 to assess the effect of virtual versus in-person interviews on ranking variabilities.

Results

NWSR and WSR mean rankings differed by 1.33 (95% confidence interval difference 0.61 to 2.04, p = 0.0003), with WSR interviewers having less variability than NWSR pairs. The variability between 2018/2019 (in-person interviews) and 2020 (virtual interviews) showed no differences between in-person and virtual interviews (weighted Kappa statistic 0.086 for 2018, 0.158 for 2019, and 0.101 for 2020; p < 0.05 for all years). The overall least attractive candidate has the lowest variability; the most attractive candidate has the second lowest variability.

Conclusion

Grouping interviewers WSR during the interview decreased ranking variabilities compared to NWSR, while a change from in-person to virtual interview format did not increase the ranking variabilities. This suggests that the decreased nonverbal interactions in virtual interviews do not decrease interviewers' perceptions as applied to preliminary rankings.

Trends in leadership at shoulder and elbow fellowships: a cross-sectional demographic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine educational characteristics, trends, and demographics among shoulder and elbow fellowship leaders (FLs).

BACKGROUND

Fellowship leaders in shoulder and elbow impart lasting impact on trainees and field development. Four previous studies have analyzed the characteristics and career path trends among orthopedic surgery subspecialty FLs (spine, adult reconstruction, trauma, and sports medicine). We characterized the educational backgrounds and demographic composition of all 40 FLs including fellowship directors (FD), fellowship co-directors (co-FD), and associate fellowship directors (associate FD) of 31 American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES)-accredited shoulder and elbow fellowships in the United States. We additionally compiled the residency and fellowship institutions that trained FLs as framework for aspiring leaders in orthopedic surgery.

METHODS

Using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) directory website page "ASES-Recognized Shoulder and Elbow Fellowship Programs," we identified all active shoulder and elbow fellowships within the United States as well as associated FL identifiers. Compiled data points include age, sex, ethnicity, residency/fellowship training location, time since education completion until FL appointment, length in FL role, personal research Scopus H-index, and major society and journal leadership position history.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from all 40 active FLs across 31 ASES-accredited shoulder and elbow fellowships, encompassing 26 FDs, 13 co-FDs, and 1 associate FD. The majority of FLs (97.5%) were male whereas 2.5% were female, with racial/ethnic identification of 80.0% Caucasian, 10.0% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 10.0% Middle Eastern. The mean Scopus H-index of the FLs was 24.63 ± 16.43. The top residency programs for producing future FLs were the University of Pittsburgh, University of Pennsylvania, University of Nebraska/Creighton, Hospital for Special Surgery, and Brown University (all n = 2). The top fellowship programs for producing future FLs were Mayo Clinic (n = 6), Columbia University (n = 6), San Francisco/California Pacific (n = 4), and Washington University in St Louis (n = 4).

CONCLUSION

Shoulder and elbow fellowship leaders graduate with increased frequency from certain fellowship programs with lesser correlation to residency institutions. Programs demonstrate high retention of prior trainees as future FLs. All FLs are distinguished by high indices of research productivity; however, demographic diversity remains limited, which is comparable to prior orthopedic subspecialty FL investigations.

Applicant Ranking Criteria in Adult Reconstruction Fellowship: Your Interview Counts When Applying for Fellowship

Background

The criteria for successful ranking in the fellowship match remains unclear. Although some data are available regarding the qualities sought after in medical students for the residency match, little information is available regarding the fellowship match. In this study, for arthroplasty applications to our institution, the interview was hypothesized to be the most important factor for ranking, with little impact from other commonly assessed variables.

Methodology

All 40 applicants who applied for fellowship were selected to interview for the 2017 Brown University Comprehensive Adult Reconstruction Fellowship and were evaluated on the interview, United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores, letters of recommendation, personal statement, extracurricular activities, research, and caliber of undergraduate institution, medical school, and residency program. The interview score was based on a combined score of individual components of personality, program fit, and research.

Results

Of the 40 applicants who were interviewed, eight did not match. The interview score was the only statistically significant variable and had the highest correlation with ranking (r = 0.92). Moreover, extracurricular activities correlated with a higher ranking whereas USMLE Step 1/Step 2 scores had a relatively low correlation (r = 0.32 and 0.29, respectively). Recommendation letters and caliber of medical school, undergraduate education, and residency demonstrated low correlations. The personal statement and research components had the lowest correlations.

Conclusions

The combined interview score, in particular the personality and program fit components, was the most important determinant of successful ranking at our institution. Because all 40 applicants who applied for an arthroplasty fellowship at our institution were selected for an interview, there was no pre-interview selection bias that would confound these results. However, the ranking does not correlate with an applicant’s success in fellowship, and further research is required to determine the qualifications of a successful surgeon.

Trends in Academic Achievement Within Otolaryngology: Does Fellowship Training Impact Research Productivity?

BACKGROUND

Scholarly productivity and research output vary among different subspecialties. The h-index was developed as a more wholesome metric that measures an author's contribution to literature.

OBJECTIVE

Through a web-based cross-sectional analysis, we investigated the differences in scholarly impact and influence of both fellowship and nonfellowship-trained academic otolaryngologists in the United States. A secondary objective was to further understand the output among the larger fellowship fields.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis was performed for active faculty otolaryngologists. A total of 1704 otolaryngologists were identified as faculty in residency training programs across the United States. Their h-index and publication data were gathered using the Scopus database. The data were obtained in August 2019 and analysis occurred in January 2020.

RESULTS

Head and neck surgical faculty (25.5%) had the highest representation with fellowship experience. Among all faculty, there was no statistical difference in the overall average h-index scores when comparing faculty that had fellowship training with those who did not (12.6 and 12.1, respectively, P = .498). Rhinologists had the highest publication output per year at 3.90. Among fellowship-trained faculty, the highest average h-index and total publications were seen in head & neck surgery, while facial plastics had the lowest averages (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, fellowship-trained faculty had a greater but not significant scholarly impact than nonfellowship faculty. Furthermore, there were significant variations in output among the various subspecialties of otolaryngology. Growing fields, as academic rhinology, are continuing to flourish in robust research productivity and output. This study further demonstrates the potential, growing influence of fellowship training on research involvement and academic advancement within the otolaryngology subspecialties.

Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Directors Are Predominantly White Men With a High Degree of Research Productivity

PURPOSE

To determine the objective characteristics of fellowship directors (FDs) in orthopaedic sports medicine by focusing on the demographics, academic background, institutional history, research experience, and professional affiliations of FDs in this field.

METHODS

Data was collected for each FD via institutional biographies or publicly available curriculum vitae (CV). The data collected for each FD included age, gender, race/ethnicity, previous training institutions, residency and fellowship graduation years, additional advanced degrees, military affiliation, institutional loyalty, year hired by current institution, career timeline, Scopus H-index, number of publications, and total number of citations.

RESULTS

Of the 88 FDs, 87 (98.9%) were male and 1 (1.1%) was female. The mean age for all FDs was 54.7 years (± 9.1 standard deviation). The majority of FDs were White (n = 80; 90.9%). The mean Scopus H-index, total number of publications, and total number of citations were 22.5 ± 16.6, 90.0 ± 91.6, and 2773.9 ± 3962.9, respectively. On average, it took 9.5 ± 7.3 years from fellowship graduation until FD appointment. Additionally, the mean number of years of employment or affiliation with the current institution was 17.2 ± 9.4, and the mean number of years in an FD role was 10.9 ± 9.3.

CONCLUSION

Orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship directors are largely distinguished by their high level of research productivity and accomplishment. Additionally, orthopaedic training pedigree seems to play a role in FD role attainment, with a handful of orthopaedic residency and sports medicine fellowship programs producing a large percentage of current FDs. Finally, FDs are overwhelmingly white males with little female or minority representation.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study outlines some of the most important characteristics among orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship directors and identifies racial and gender disparities within this population of leaders that may have detrimental effects on the field as a whole.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Application Process

Over the last year, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread across the world as a global pandemic, bringing unprecedented changes to the healthcare landscape for patients and physicians. Medical trainees have been similarly affected, as medical schools throughout the United States have implemented remote learning-based curriculums and withdrawn third- and fourth-year students from in-hospital clerkships. Of particular importance is the impact of COVID-19 on current orthopaedic surgery residents applying to subspecialty fellowship programs. Because of the highly transmissible nature of the virus and current social distancing restrictions, orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship interviews are being held virtually during the 2020–2021 application cycle. This transition to videoconference interviewing may de-emphasize an applicant's unique personality or interpersonal interactions that are traditionally captured in a variety of settings during the interview day. In turn, this may lead to increased prioritization of various aspects of the application, such as the applicant’s residency program, letters of recommendation, and research productivity. Matching to a sports medicine fellowship program is an inherently competitive process and the COVID-19 pandemic presents novel challenges to orthopaedic residents in their efforts to successfully match. The purpose of this review is to describe the changes made to the orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship interview process resulting from COVID-19 during the 2020-2021 application cycle and discuss how these changes may impact the future fellowship application process. This review discusses the changes made to the orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship interview process caused by COVID-19 during the 2020–2021 application cycle. This review also assesses how such changes may impact the future application process and proposes potential adaptations to the current virtual interview format if it should become the new standard moving forward.

Adult Reconstruction Fellowship Interviewee Perceptions of Virtual vs In-Person Interview Formats

Background

Owing to COVID-19, arthroplasty fellowship programs will be required to interview virtually for the current application cycle. Unrelated to COVID-19, our arthroplasty fellowship offered the 2019-2020 interviewees the option of an in-person or virtual interview. The purpose of the present study is to compare interviewee perceptions regarding in-person vs virtual interview formats from that application cycle at a single institution.

Methods

A 17-question survey was sent to all 26 interviewees (13 in-person and 13 virtual) shortly after the rank-list submission deadline. Interviewees were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with several statements, ranging from whether the interview was enjoyable to whether interviewees felt they were being adequately evaluated. In this Likert scale rating system, “strongly agree” was given 5 points (more positive outlook), and “strongly disagree” was given 1 point (more negative outlook). Chi-square analyses were performed.

Results

Seventeen interviewees (8 in-person and 9 virtual) returned questionnaires (response rate: 65%). Both in-person and virtual interview ratings were similar when averaged across all statements (4.5 vs 4.4, P = .67). In-person and virtual ratings were also similar for each individual statement (all P > .05). On average, interviewees spent $557/in-person interview. Fifteen (88%) said virtual interviews were more convenient, and 14 (94%) said they were more cost-effective.

Conclusion

At a single institution, perceptions on interview format, as quantified through Likert scale ratings, were similar between in-person and virtual groups. The vast majority also viewed virtual interviews as more convenient and cost-efficient. These findings have immediate implications for future fellowship application cycles.

Factors Considered in Ranking Spine Surgery Fellowship Applicants: A Survey of Program Directors

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine which factors spine surgery fellowship program directors (PDs) consider most important when ranking applicants.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Spine surgery is a popular orthopedic subspecialty. As such, the spine fellowship match process is highly competitive. Surveys of fellowship PDs in orthopedic sports medicine and hand surgery have demonstrated differing opinions regarding factors considered most important when ranking fellowship applicants. The factors considered important to spine surgery fellowship PDs have not been evaluated.

METHODS

A web-based questionnaire was sent to the PDs of all spine surgery fellowships participating in the San Francisco (SF) Match Program. The questions were designed to identify criteria considered most important in ranking spine surgery fellowship applicants. A list of 12 criteria was presented and PDs were asked to rank these in order of importance. A weighted score for each criterion was calculated using the following scale: 5 points for each criterion ranked 1st, 4 points for 2nd, 3 points for 3rd, 2 points for 4th, and 1 point for 5th.

RESULTS

Of the 73 PDs queried, 52 responded (71% response rate). The interview was the most important factor when ranking fellowship applicants. The other criteria deemed most important in order of weighted scoring were letters of recommendation and personal connections to the applicant and/or familiarity with the applicant's letter writer(s).

CONCLUSION

Spine surgery fellowship PDs consider the interview, letters of recommendation, and personal connections with the applicant/letter writers to be the most important factors when ranking candidates. These results may be valuable to orthopedic residents and mentors of those pursuing fellowship training in spine surgery.Level of Evidence: 4.

Fellowships in Podiatric Medicine

Graduating podiatric medicine and surgery residents are increasingly likely to pursue fellowship training. Nonetheless, there has been a lack of formal characterization of fellowship training in the field. The present study aimed to characterize fellowship training through an online survey. Two separate surveys were created, 1 for fellowship directors and 1 for fellows. Fellowship directors and fellows were asked questions pertaining to daily responsibilities, quality of training, work-life balance, the application process, fellow selection, and program selection. A total of 33 fellowship directors and 49 fellows responded to the survey, which was delivered over a 2-year period. Overall, fellows were generally satisfied with their respective programs, though greater satisfaction was associated with increased time allowed for research, as well as greater perceived quality of research training, clinical training, surgical training, and practice management training. When selecting a program, the 3 highest-rated factors were focus of the program, reputation of the fellowship director, and career options, and the 3 most important foot and ankle topics were hindfoot/ankle arthrodesis surgery, arthroscopy, and trauma. Open-ended responses from both fellowship directors and fellows reflected a range of opinions and recommendations, which may be helpful for future fellows or for fellowship program faculty. Notably, both fellowship directors and fellows commonly reported that the application process was in need of improvement, with increased standardization of the application process suggested. The results of the present study reflect baseline data on the topic, and may help facilitate improvement of the fellowship experience.

Trends in leadership at orthopaedic surgery sports medicine fellowships

BACKGROUND

Fellowship directors (FDs) in sports medicine influence the future of trainees in the field of orthopaedics. Understanding the characteristics these leaders share must be brought into focus. For all current sports medicine FDs, our group analyzed their demographic background, institutional training, and academic experience.

AIM

To serve as a framework for those aspiring to achieve this position in orthopaedics and also identify opportunities to improve the position.

METHODS

Fellowship programs were identified using both the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine and the Arthroscopy Association of North America Sports Medicine Fellowship Directories. The demographic and educational background data for each FD was gathered via author review of current curriculum vitae (CVs). Any information that was unavailable on CV review was gathered from institutional biographies, Scopus Web of Science, and emailed questionnaires. To ensure the collection of as many data points as possible, fellowship program coordinators, orthopaedic department offices and FDs were directly contacted via phone if there was no response via email. Demographic information of interest included: Age, gender, ethnicity, residency/fellowship training, residency/fellowship graduation year, year hired by current institution, time since training completion until FD appointment, length in FD role, status as a team physician and H-index.

RESULTS

Information was gathered for 82 FDs. Of these, 97.5% (n = 80) of the leadership were male; 84.15% (n = 69) were Caucasian, 7.32% (n = 6) were Asian-American, 2.44% (n = 2) were Hispanic and 2.44% (n = 2) were African American, and 3.66% (n = 3) were of another race or ethnicity. The mean age of current FDs was 56 years old (± 9.00 years), and the mean Scopus H-index was 23.49 (± 16.57). The mean calendar years for completion of residency and fellowship training were 1996 (± 15 years) and 1997 (± 9.51 years), respectively. The time since fellowship training completion until FD appointment was 9.77 years. 17.07% (n = 14) of FDs currently work at the same institution where they completed residency training; 21.95% (n = 18) of FDs work at the same institution where they completed fellowship training; and 6.10% (n = 5) work at the same institution where they completed both residency and fellowship training. Additionally, 69.5% (n = 57) are also team physicians at the professional and/or collegiate level. Of those that were found to currently serve as team physicians, 56.14% (n = 32) of them worked with professional sports teams, 29.82% (n = 17) with collegiate sports teams, and 14.04% (n = 8) with both professional and collegiate sports teams. Seven residency programs produced the greatest number of future FDs, included programs produced at least three future FDs. Seven fellowship programs produced the greatest number of future FDs, included programs produced at least four future FDs. Eight FDs (9.75%) completed two fellowships and three FDs (3.66%) finished three fellowships. Three FDs (3.66%) did not graduate from any fellowship training program. The Scopus H-indices for FDs are displayed as ranges that include 1 to 15 (31.71%, n = 26), 15 to 30 (34.15%, n = 28), 30 to 45 (20.73%, n = 17), 45 to 60 (6.10%, n = 5) and 60 to 80 (3.66%, n = 3). Specifically, the most impactful FD in research currently has a Scopus H-index value of 79. By comparison, the tenth most impactful FD in research had a Scopus H-index value of 43 (accessed December 1, 2019).

CONCLUSION

This study provides an overview of current sports medicine FDs within the United States and functions as a guide to direct initiatives to achieve diversity equality.

The Competitive Orthopaedic Trauma Fellowship Applicant: A Program Director's Perspective

Introduction:

In 2018, orthopaedic trauma had the lowest match rate among orthopaedic subspecialties. The purpose of this study was to determine the importance of factors evaluated by orthopaedic trauma fellowship directors when ranking applicants after the interview.

Methods:

An electronic survey was submitted to fellowship directors and consisted of 16 factors included in a fellowship application. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of these factors for applicants they interviewed on a 1 to 5 Likert scale, with 1 being not at all important and 5 being critical.

Results:

Thirty-seven fellowship directors responded (63.8%). The highest-rated factor was the applicant interview (mean score 4.82), followed by the quality of letters of recommendation (4.69), personal connections made to the applicant (3.89), and potential to be leader (3.86). Fellowship directors at academic programs rated interest in an academic career (P = 0.003), research experience (P = 0.023), and exposure to well-known orthopaedic traumatologists (P = 0.003) higher than their counterparts at private institutions. Programs with more than one fellow rated potential to be a leader higher than programs with one fellow (P = 0.02).

Discussion:

Trainees may use this study when compiling an application to optimize their chances of matching at the program of their choice.

Factors considered in ranking orthopedic shoulder and elbow fellowship applicants: a survey of program directors

Background

Orthopedic fellowship positions continue to be increasingly competitive, with most orthopedic residency graduates pursuing fellowship after completion of residency. Shoulder and elbow fellowship training represents an increasingly competitive and relatively smaller cohort of applicants than other subspecialties; there are only 29 programs with a total of 40 offered positions. The purpose of this survey is to identify and rank factors considered most important by shoulder and elbow fellowship directors when identifying potential fellowship candidates.

Methods

A web-based survey was emailed to all 29 orthopedic shoulder and elbow fellowship directors recognized by American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons. Demographic information was collected regarding program size, total number of applicants interviewed, and total number of applicants subsequently ranked. The survey also included a list of twelve applicant characteristics which each program director was asked to rank in a sequential order (most important to least). The median score of each factor was calculated, and a weighted score was applied to the top five (of twelve) categories selected by each program. Five points were given to the top-ranked factor. Four points were given to factors ranked 2nd, three points to factors ranked 3rd, two points to factors ranked 4th, and one point to factors ranked 5th. The weighted scores were then used to determine the most highly desired applicant characteristics.

Results

Twenty-two of 29 (76%) orthopedic shoulder and elbow fellowship programs responded to the survey. Fourteen of 22 (64%) programs interview 20 or fewer applicants each year. No programs ranked more than 25 applicants. Twelve of 22 (55%) of program directors rated the interview as the most important factor, whereas 6 of 22 (27%) selected letters of recommendation. Based on the weighted score calculation, interviews, letters of recommendation, and personal connections to the applicant/letter writers comprised the top three categories, respectively, and captured 193 of 330 (58%) of the total available points in the weighted score. Strength of shoulder/elbow experience in residency, ties to the geographical area, and comments made regarding technical competence scored among the lowest factors.

Conclusion

Orthopedic shoulder and elbow fellowship directors consistently ranked interviews, letters of recommendation, and personal connection to applicant/letter writer higher than other factors when ranking applicants. This information provides both program directors as well as applicants with important information to consider when navigating the shoulder and elbow fellowship application process.

Virtual Versus In-Person Surgical Fellowship Interviews and Ranking Variability: the COVID-19 Experience

Objective

To investigate the effect of interview format changes (in-person to virtual, one-to-one to multiple-to-one) necessitated by the COVID-19 travel restrictions on candidate ranking variabilities.

Method

In 2018/2019, the glaucoma fellowship interviews were conducted in-person and one-to-one, whereas in 2020, interviews were virtual and multiple (interviewers)-to-one (candidate). We compared ranking ranges of interviewers within the same virtual room (WSR) and not within the same virtual room (NWSR) to assess the effect of this change on ranking variabilities. We also compared ranking categories ("accept," "alternate," and "pass") agreements between in-person and virtual interviews to assess the effect of this change on ranking variabilities.

Results

NWSR and WSR mean rankings differed by 1.33 (95% confidence interval difference 0.61 to 2.04, p = 0.0003), with WSR interviewers having less variability than NWSR pairs. The variability of in-person interviews and later virtual interviews showed no differences (weighted Kappa statistic 0.086 for 2018, 0.158 for 2019, and 0.101 for 2020; p < 0.05 for all years). The overall least attractive candidate has the lowest variability; the most attractive candidate has the second lowest variability.

Conclusion

Grouping interviewers decreased ranking variabilities, while a change from in-person to virtual interview format did not increase the ranking variabilities.

Variety and Complexity of Surgical Exposure, Operative Autonomy, and Program Reputation Are Important Factors for Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Applicants

Purpose

To identify the factors considered most important by sports medicine fellowship applicants when deciding where to apply and ultimately interview.

Methods

An anonymous, electronic survey was distributed in 2018 via e-mail to orthopaedic surgery residents who applied to a specific orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship program in 2015 and 2016. The survey included questions regarding the number of fellowships applications per respondent and the number of interviews they were offered and accepted. Questions regarding the application process were included. Participants also were asked to rank 9 criteria from most to least important (1 being most important; 9 being least important) when deciding where to apply or accept interviews. Each criterion’s score reflects its average ranking among respondents.

Results

Among the 99 orthopaedic surgery residents applying to this fellowship program, 42 (42.4%) completed the survey. The factors considered most influential included variety and complexity of surgical exposure (2.16), autonomy (3.72), and reputation of faculty members (4.05). The factors considered least important were program size (7.21), job placement of past fellows (7.07), and geographic location (5.68).

Conclusions

Variety and complexity of surgical exposure, operative autonomy, and program reputation were valued as the most important factors for orthopaedic surgery residents applying to sports medicine fellowship programs.

Clinical Relevance

The information obtained in this study may provide sports medicine fellowship programs and orthopaedic residents with a better understanding of factors that are considered to be important by sports medicine fellowship applicants. This will improve training for future sports medicine specialists, thus improving the care that they provide to their patients.

Interviewing in the Wake of COVID-19: How Orthopaedic Residencies, Fellowships, and Applicants Should Prepare for Virtual Interviews

On May 7, 2020, the Coalition for Physician Accountability's released "Medical Students in the Class of 2021: Moving Across Institutions for Post Graduate Training," which comprises official recommendations on keeping programs and medical students safe during the upcoming match cycle with the challenges posed by COVID-19. In these recommendations, away rotations are discouraged, and all programs are compelled to commit to virtual interviews. Unlike employers and applicants in other industries, orthopaedic residency/fellowship programs and candidates seeking those positions have not routinely conducted virtual interviews. Without in-person interviews, applicants may perceive a limited ability to demonstrate their qualifications, judge program culture, and gauge ultimate program compatibility. Likewise, programs may perceive the inability to evaluate a candidate in real time, physically show program strengths, and ultimately judge applicant compatibility. Careful preparation and execution of a virtual interview can overcome these perceived limitations, whereas benefits, such as decreased cost for both programs and applicants, can make virtual interviews appealing. The purpose of this review was to help define a virtual interview, illustrate the benefits, and offer tips to both programs and applicants on how to prepare and perform optimally on an interview day.

Characteristics of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Directors

Background:

No study in the orthopaedic literature has analyzed the demographic characteristics or surgical training of sports medicine fellowship directors (FDs). Objective determinations as to what makes a physician qualified for this leadership position remain unclear; thus, it is important to identify these qualities as future physicians look to fill these roles.

Purpose:

To illustrate characteristics common among sports medicine FDs.

Study Design:

Cross-sectional study.

Methods:

The 2020 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Fellowship Directory was used to identify the FDs for all orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs in the United States. The characteristics and educational background data for FDs were gathered by 2 independent reviewers from up-to-date curricula vitarum, Web of Science, and institutional biographies and consolidated into 1 database. Data points gathered included age, sex, residency/fellowship training location and graduation year, name of current institution, length of time at current institution, time since training completion until being appointed FD, length of time in current FD role, and personal research H-index.

Results:

We identified 90 current orthopaedic sports medicine FDs. The mean Scopus H-index was 24.1 (median, 17). The mean age of FDs was 55.4 years; 87 of 90 (96.7%) were male and 3 (3.3%) were female; and 79/90 (87.8%) were White and 3/90 (3.3%) were African-American. The mean time to complete residency was 5.1 years (range, 5.0-6.0 years), and the most attended residency programs were the Hospital for Special Surgery (n = 9), the Harvard Combined Orthopaedic Residency Program (n = 5), and Duke University Medical Center (n = 4). The mean time required to complete a fellowship was 1.1 years (range, 1.0-2.0 years), and the fellowship programs that produced the most future FDs were the American Sports Medicine Institute (n = 11), the Steadman Hawkins Clinic (Vail) (n = 8), the Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (n = 7), and the Hospital for Special Surgery (n = 7). The mean time from completion of fellowship to appointment as a FD was 12.8 years (range, 1-39 years).

Conclusion:

Women and minority groups are largely underrepresented among leadership positions in the field of orthopaedic sports medicine.

Rapid exponential increase in neurosurgery departmental scholarly output following an intensive research initiative

There has been extensive research into methods of increasing academic departmental scholarly activity (DSA) through targeted interventions. Residency programmes are responsible for ensuring sufficient scholarly opportunities for residents. We sought to discover the outcomes of an intensive research initiative (IRI) on DSA in our department in a short-time interval. IRI was implemented, consisting of multiple interventions, to rapidly produce an increase in DSA through resident/medical student faculty engagement. We compare pre-IRI (8 years) and post-IRI (2 years) research products (RP), defined as the sum of oral presentations and publications, to evaluate the IRI. The study was performed in 2020. The IRI resulted in an exponential increase in DSA with an annual RP increase of 350% from 2017 (3 RP) to 2018 (14 RP), with another 92% from 2018 (14 RP) to 2019 (27 RP). RP/year exponentially increased from 2.1/year to 10.5/year for residents and 0.5/year to 10/year for medical students, resulting in a 400% and 1900% increase in RP/year, respectively. The common methods in literature to increase DSA included instituting protected research time (23.8%) and research curriculum (21.5%). We share our department's increase in DSA over a short 2-year period after implementing our IRI. Our goal in reporting our experience is to provide an example for departments that need to rapidly increase their DSA. By reporting the shortest time interval to achieve exponential DSA growth, we hope this example can support programmes in petitioning hospitals and medical colleges for academic support resources.

The Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Application Process: An Analysis of the Applicant Experience

Purpose

To evaluate the process of applying to orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships from the applicant’s perspective, with a focus on number of program applications, interviews, interview day importance, and financial burden.

Methods

An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to all orthopaedic surgery residents who applied to orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships in the United States in 2016 and 2017. The survey contained 26 questions, with 10 pertaining to applicant demographics, accolades, and examination scores. A follow up e-mail was distributed at 2 and 4 weeks to increase participation.

Results

The survey was distributed to 453 sports medicine fellowship applicants; 148 (34.1%) completed the survey. Of the respondents, 130 (87.8%) were male and 18 (12.2%) were female. When analyzing United States Medical Licensing Examination scores, respondents who scored above a 251 on Step 2 CK were more likely to receive more than 20 interviews compared with those who scored lower (P = .013). Previous collegiate or professional athlete status did not influence the number of interviews received. In total, 94 of 147 (64.0%) respondents applied to more than 20 programs, and 73 respondents (49.7%) attended between 11 and 15 interviews. The majority of respondents spent between $4001 and $6000 (49; 33.1%) throughout the application process. Interaction with faculty and case volume/complexity were the most important factors in ranking programs.

Conclusions

The majority of orthopaedic surgery residents pursue at least 1 year of fellowship training following residency, with sports medicine being one of the most popular specialties. The application process for sports medicine fellowships is complex, competitive, and a financial burden for applicants. Most applicants apply to more than 20 programs, spend between $4000 and $6,000 over the course of the application process, and value faculty interaction and case volume/complexity over other factors associated with a program.

Clinical Relevance

As other surgical fellowships have detailed their application process from the applicant's perspective, there remains a need for increased transparency of the sports medicine fellowship application in order to offer additional insight and guidance for future applicants.

Factors Considered in Ranking Orthopaedic Trauma Fellowship Applicants: A Survey of Program Directors

INTRODUCTION

More than 90% of orthopaedic surgery graduates pursue fellowship training after residency. Previous investigations have examined factors considered important by orthopaedic sports medicine and hand surgery fellowship program directors (PDs). This study sought to identify which factors orthopaedic trauma fellowship PDs deem most important when evaluating applicants.

METHODS

A web-based survey was sent to all 59 orthopaedic trauma fellowship PDs. PDs were given a list of 12 factors, which they ranked in order of importance. A weighted score for each factor was calculated. PDs could also write-in additional factors they considered important when ranking applicants.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 83% (49/59 PDs). Forty-five percent of responding PDs listed the interview as the most important factor when ranking applicants. Other factors considered most important included letters of recommendation, personal connections to the applicant and/or letter writers, and the applicant's background in trauma. Results of the weighted score calculation again identified the interview as the most important factor when ranking applicants, followed by letters of recommendation, personal connections to the applicant/letter writers, the applicant's residency program, strength of the applicant's background in trauma, and research experience.

DISCUSSION

Orthopaedic trauma fellowship PDs consider the interview, letters of recommendation, and personal connections to the applicant/letter writers to be the most important factors when ranking fellowship applicants.

Factors Considered in Ranking Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Fellowship Applicants: A Survey of Program Directors

Background

Variables considered by hip and knee arthroplasty fellowship program directors (PDs) to select fellowship candidates are not well known.

Methods

A web-based questionnaire containing 5 questions was developed and sent to all 92 adult reconstruction fellowship PDs via email. Three questions collected program information including the number of positions available, the number of candidates interviewed, and ranked annually. PDs were then given a list of 12 factors and asked to rank them in the order of importance. A weighted score for each factor was calculated using the following scale: 5 points each time a factor was ranked 1st, 4 points each time a factor was ranked 2nd, 3 points for each 3rd place rank, 2 points for each 4th place rank, and 1 point for each 5th place rank. PDs were also allowed to write in other factors they considered important when ranking fellowship candidates.

Results

The overall response rate was 34.8% (32/92). Seventy-five percent of responding programs indicated that they interview between 21 and 40 applicants per year for their fellowship position(s). The interview was ranked as the most important variable in selecting applicants by 53.1% of responding PDs, followed by letters of recommendation (ranked first by 25% of PDs) and personal connections to the applicant and/or letter writer(s) (ranked first by 9% of PDs). A positive correlation was identified between the program size and an applicant’s geographical ties to the city/town of the fellowship program (r_s = 0.472; P = .006).

Conclusions

According to hip and knee arthroplasty fellowship PDs, the interview, letters of recommendation, and personal connections to the applicant and/or letter writers are the most important factors considered in selecting arthroplasty fellowship candidates.

Trends in Leadership at Orthopedic Surgery Adult Reconstruction Fellowships

BACKGROUND

Fellowship directors (FDs) in adult reconstruction have a profound impact on current and future trainees within orthopedics. Our group sought to evaluate the shared characteristics among current adult reconstruction FDs to provide a framework for those aspiring to achieve this position and identify possible areas of improvement.

METHODS

Fellowship programs were identified using the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Directory. Data for each FD were gathered via electronic mail, telephone, curriculum vitae, and online searches. Demographic information collected included age, gender, ethnicity, residency/fellowship training, residency/fellowship graduation year, year hired by current institution, time since training completion until FD appointment, length in FD role, and Scopus H-index.

RESULTS

Information was gathered for 94 FDs. Of these, 100% were males; 80.6% were Caucasian, 12.90% were Asian American, 5.38% were Hispanic, and 1.08% were African American. The average age (52.6 years old), H-index (16.54), year of residency (2000) and fellowship (2001) graduation, and time since training until FD appointment (9.55 years) were analyzed. The top training programs to produce future FDs were Mayo Clinic (residency) and Harvard University (fellowship).

CONCLUSION

Adult reconstruction FDs are frequently distinguished by their level of research productivity and experience, but certainly more demographic diversity is needed within this cohort. Specific training programs may inherently have a vital role in the development of individuals for future leadership positions. These developments could be a result of unique features inherent to the training programs or because of a subset of applicants who pursue specific programs with aspirations of subsequent leadership opportunities.

Residency Program Reputation Influences the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Match Results

BACKGROUND

No data evaluate the impact that an applicant's residency program reputation has on the outcome of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) fellowship match. This study sought to determine if an applicant's residency program ranking was associated with where the applicant matched on their rank list.

METHODS

We included all the US applicants from the "San Francisco Match" regarding AAHKS applicant data and match results from 2014 to 2018. Residency programs were divided into 5 tiers based on 2018 Doximity ranking of Orthopedic Residency Programs. Statistical analysis consisted of descriptive statistics, chi-squared tests, and analysis of variance.

RESULTS

In total, 656 applicants met inclusion criteria (620 males; 36 females). Tier 1 applicants applied to an average of 10 fewer programs than applicants from all other tiers. Eighteen percent of applicants from tier 1 residencies were offered interviews at 80%+ of their applied programs compared to 5% or less of the applicants from all other tiers. Applicants from top tier residencies matched at a significantly higher place on their rank list than other tiers (P < .05) and ranked into one of their first 2 choices 72% of the time. The mean fellowship rank position for tier 1 applicants was 5.96 compared to 7.04, 7.85, 7.78, and 8.10 for subsequent tiers, respectively (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The fellowship match process represents a high-stakes and expensive process. This study found that applicants from more prestigious residency programs apply to fewer programs, gain more interviews, and match higher on their rank list than applicants from other residency programs.

Identifiable Factors Associated With Acceptance Into Sports Medicine Fellowship Programs: A Brief Report

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors associated with entry into primary care sports medicine (PCSM) fellowship programs.

DESIGN

Primary care sports medicine fellowship directors (FDs) and fellowship faculty were surveyed regarding preferences for accepting applicants into their programs.

SETTING

Survey study.

PARTICIPANTS

Primary care sports medicine FDs and fellowship faculty.

ASSESSMENT OF RISK FACTORS

Questions were designed to delineate factors [clinical experience, letters of recommendation (LOR), scholarship, service commitment, interview performance, etc] perceived to be associated with entry into PCSM fellowship (1-10 scale; 10 = highest value). Weighted mean ± SD were calculated for each question.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Determination of most valued factors for entry into PCSM fellowship.

RESULTS

Responses were provided by 242/2332 (10.4%) of the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine members, including 77 of 175 (44%) FDs. The top 3 factors for entry into PCSM fellowships for all respondents were as follows: interview performance (9.17 ± 1.13), LOR from SM fellowship faculty (8.20 ± 1.67), and high school game/event coverage (7.83 ± 1.70). Musculoskeletal ultrasound experience (4.50 ± 2.23) and residency training in pediatrics (4.58 ± 2.54), internal medicine (4.48 ± 2.44), emergency medicine (4.44 ± 2.59), and physical medicine and rehabilitation (4.40 ± 2.83) received the lowest scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Applicants seeking entry into SM fellowships should prioritize performance during interviews, LOR from SM fellowship faculty, and team game/event coverage experiences.

An Evaluation of Self-Reported Publications in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Applications

Background

Orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship positions are increasing in popularity, as evidenced by the increasing number of applicants to these programs. As positions have become more competitive, greater emphasis has been placed on an applicant's research experience. However, there has been a lack of research evaluating the accuracy of self-reported publications from fellowship applications.

Purpose

To evaluate the accuracy of self-reported research publications and the outcomes of studies submitted for publication by applicants to an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited sports medicine fellowship in the United States (US).

Study Design

Cross-sectional study.

Methods

Demographic and research publication data were retrospectively collected from 435 applications to an ACGME-accredited orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship program at a single high-volume academic institution from 2013 to 2017. All self-reported manuscript publications and studies in progress were analyzed with a minimum 2-year follow-up. "Submitted" publications were reviewed by searching the originally submitted journal and all publicly available sources. Publications were verified on PubMed, MEDLINE, and other open access journals. Journal impact factors were collected through use of InCites Journal Citation Reports.

Results

Only 5.7% (85/1504) of papers reported as "completed" were inaccurately self-reported, with 44 (51.8%) remaining unverified and 41 (48.2%) reporting discordant authorship, in which the published study listed a different author order than reported on the application. Further, 28.3% (197/696) of papers self-reported as "submitted" remained unpublished, 21.8% (152/696) were published in a different journal than originally reported, and 7.6% (53/696) were published with a different authorship order than reported. Among 95 applicants whose papers were published in different journals than originally reported, the mean impact factor of the final accepting journal was significantly lower than that of the journal of original submission (0.97 ± 0.13 vs 3.91 ± 0.79, respectively; 95% CI of the difference, 1.34-4.54; P < .01). Univariate analysis showed no significant relationships between variables of interest (age, sex, US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score, American Orthopaedic Association membership, medical school ranking, and advanced degree) and the presence of an inaccuracy.

Conclusion

There is a low rate of inaccurate self-reporting of "completed" publications on applications for orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships. The majority of papers listed as "submitted" on these applications were not published in the journals to which they were originally submitted.

Trends in Leadership at Spine Surgery Fellowships

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE

To illustrate demographic trends among spine fellowship leaders (FLs).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

No previous study in the orthopedic literature has analyzed the demographic characteristics or past surgical training of FL in an orthopedic sub-specialty. We attempt to illustrate demographic trends among spine fellowship leadership including fellowship directors (FDs) and co-fellowship directors (co-FDs). We also highlight the institutions that have trained these leaders at various levels.

METHODS

Our search for FDs was constructed from the 2018 to 2019 North American Spine Surgery (NASS) Fellowship Directory. Datapoints gathered included: age, sex, residency/fellowship training location, time since training completion until FD appointment, length in FD role, and personal research H-index.

RESULTS

We identified 103 FLs consisting of 67 FDs, 19 co-FDs, and another 16 individuals with a synonymous leadership title. 96.1% (99) of the leadership consisted of males while 3.9% (4) were female. The mean age was 52.9 years old and the mean h-index of the FLs was 23.8. FLs were trained in orthopedic surgery (n = 89), neurosurgery (n = 13), or combined orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery training (n = 1). The top fellowships programs producing future FLs were: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland (n = 10), Washington University, St. Louis (n = 9), and Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia (n = 7).

CONCLUSION

Spine surgery fellowship directors are more likely to have graduated from certain residency and fellowship programs. This finding could be a result of the training provided by these centers or the institution's predilection to select applicants that are more likely to later seek academic leadership roles post-training.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

How the Reputation of Orthopaedic Residency Programs Is Associated with Orthopaedic Fellowship Match Results

BACKGROUND

The primary goal of the present study was to determine if applicants from higher-ranking U.S. orthopaedic surgery residency programs match at a more desired position on their fellowship match-rank list compared with those applicants from lower-ranked residency programs.

METHODS

San Francisco Match provided results regarding applicant data and match results from 2014 to 2018 for all orthopaedic subspecialties except the hand and the shoulder and elbow. Unmatched applicants and international medical graduates were excluded. Residency programs were divided into 5 tiers (with tier 1 being the highest-ranked residency programs and tier 5 being the lowest-ranked programs) on the basis of 2018 Doximity rankings of orthopaedic residency programs. Statistical analysis consisted of descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Two thousand eight hundred and eleven applicants met inclusion criteria. Applicants from residency programs in tiers 1 and 2 applied to significantly fewer programs than those from tiers 3, 4, or 5 (p < 0.0001). Applicants from each tier were significantly more likely to attain interviews than applicants from all tiers below them (p < 0.01). Applicants from tier-1 residency programs matched at a significantly higher position on their rank list (p < 0.001) and were more desirably ranked by fellowship programs (p = 0.003) compared with all other tiers.

CONCLUSIONS

Applicants from the highest-ranking residency programs apply to fewer programs, interview at a greater percentage of these programs, and are more likely to match to 1 of their top-ranking programs than applicants from lower-ranking programs. However, the association of the applicant match position with the program ranking appears to be most pronounced when it comes to fellowships selecting which applicants to interview. These findings may help future applicants when determining which programs to apply to during the match.

Use of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step-1 Score as a Screening Tool for Orthopaedic Surgery Away Rotations

BACKGROUND

Orthopaedic surgery has become an increasingly competitive specialty for medical students applying to residency. Aside from residency interviews, away rotations are one of the only opportunities for residency programs to qualitatively evaluate an applicant. The purpose of this study was to determine if residency program directors (PDs) use a minimum United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step-1 score as a screening tool for students applying for away rotations at their institution.

METHODS

An anonymous 12-question survey about residency selection criteria and which criteria are used to select applicants for away rotations was distributed to PDs at U.S. allopathic orthopaedic surgery residency programs who are members of the Council of Orthopaedic Residency Directors (CORD). Questions included information on minimum USMLE Step-1 scores, the number of students who complete away rotations at the program each year, and how applicants are selected for rotations.

RESULTS

Survey responses were received from 87 (58%) of 149 PDs. Seventy-one (82%) of these PDs reported that their program uses a minimum Step-1 score for residency applications, with the most common cutoff score being between 231 and 240 (as answered by 33 [46%] of 72 PDs). Twenty-seven (31%) of 87 PDs reported that if a student does not meet their residency minimum Step-1 score, he or she is not offered the opportunity to rotate at the program. Eleven (25%) of 44 PDs reported that they do not inform students when their score is below the program's minimum.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of orthopaedic surgery residency PDs use the USMLE Step-1 score as a screening tool for students interested in doing away rotations at their programs. If a student's Step-1 score does not meet the program's minimum, the majority of programs still will allow the student to rotate at their institution. Students should take this information into account when selecting away rotations in order to maximize their chances of matching into an orthopaedic surgery program.

Research-Track Residency Programs in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Survey of Program Directors and Recent Graduates

BACKGROUND

The importance of research in resident education has been emphasized in the orthopaedic surgery community, and a number of residency programs have incorporated a year or more of protected research time into their training. However, limited information exists as to what programs are looking for in applicants to research-track residency programs or the perceived benefits of completing such a program.

METHODS

We identified orthopaedic surgery programs that have tracks involving at least 1 year of protected research time and sent surveys to their program directors and to the 2012 through 2016 research-track graduates.

RESULTS

Twenty-three programs with research tracks were identified, and 19 program directors (83%) responded to the survey. The survey revealed that only 2 (11%) of these program directors were willing to accept lower scores and grades among applicants to their research track compared with their primary clinical (categorical) track. While most of the program directors (14 [74%]) preferred that applicants have an interest in academics, only a few (3 [16%]) considered it a failure if their research-track residents did not pursue academic careers. We obtained the e-mail addresses of 82 research-track graduates, and 66 (80%) responded to the survey. The survey revealed that those who went into academic careers were more likely than those who went into private practice to view completing a research track as beneficial for fellowship (73% versus 35%, respectively) and job (73% versus 22%, respectively) applications, believed that the income lost from the additional year of residency would be compensated for by opportunities gained from the research year (50% versus 17%, respectively), and said that they would pursue a research-track residency if they had to do it over again (81% versus 39%, respectively; all p values <0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of program directors preferred that applicants to their research-track program have an interest in academics, although most did not consider it a failure if their research-track residents entered nonacademic careers. Graduates of research-track residency programs who entered academics more frequently viewed the completion of a research track as being beneficial compared with those who went into private practice.

Structured Curriculum Vitae Scoring as a Standardized Tool for Selecting Interview Candidates for Academic Neuroradiology Faculty Positions

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Interview selection of candidates for academic radiology faculty positions is variable and subject to unconscious biases. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively apply a quantitative curriculum vitae (CV) rubric as a screening tool to identify qualified candidates for further consideration in the hiring process.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Archived CVs submitted by applicants between 2012 and 2017 for neuroradiology faculty positions at our institution were anonymized. One blinded reviewer scored resumes based on categories that included education, work experience, extracurricular/teaching experience, and research. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristics analysis were performed. This study was IRB exempted.

RESULTS

Of the total 102 applicants, 17 interviews were conducted and 10 candidates were offered a position. Maximum score of the model was 24 points. Mean score was 14 ± 4 (n = 102, range 5-22). Higher total CV score (P = 0.01), medical school ranking (P = 0.03), and number of published manuscripts (P = 0.03) were significantly associated with interview selection. The area under the curve in the ROC analysis for differentiating interview selection based on total CV scoring was 0.69 (95% confidence interval 0.56-0.82). At a cutoff of 14, the model is 82.4% sensitive, and 54.1% specific.

CONCLUSION

Standardized CV scoring is feasible with a cut-off score of 14 points providing high sensitivity in identifying candidates eligible for interview. This tool can potentially be applied in the future to the hiring process as it is neutral to factors such as gender and race and provides an opportunity to address diversity in academic medicine.

Extended Reality in Medical Education: Driving Adoption through Provider-Centered Design

Simulation is a widely used technique for medical education. Due to decreased training opportunities with real patients, and increased emphasis on both patient outcomes and remote access, demand has increased for more advanced, realistic simulation methods. Here, we discuss the increasing need for, and benefits of, extended (virtual, augmented, or mixed) reality throughout the continuum of medical education, from anatomy for medical students to procedures for residents. We discuss how to drive the adoption of mixed reality tools into medical school's anatomy, and procedural, curricula.

Outcomes in the Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Match, 2010-2017

Background:

Sports medicine is one of the most competitive fellowships in orthopaedic surgery. Despite its popularity, fellowship applicants have limited understanding of the orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship match process.

Purpose:

To define key outcomes in the orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship match, including the overall match rate, number of programs filled, and number of applicants ranked by programs that filled between 2010 and 2017.

Study Design:

Cross-sectional study.

Methods:

This study utilized data regarding the orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship match collected by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) from 2010 through 2017. Applicant data included number of applicants, number of matched and unmatched applicants, and percentage of applicants matching into their top choices. Fellowship program data included number of programs participating in the match and number of applicants ranked by filled and unfilled programs.

Results:

Between 2010 and 2017, the mean number of orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship applicants was 244.8. On average, 92.0% of applicants matched into a fellowship program. The mean number of programs participating in the fellowship match was 92.9, with a mean of 219.9 accredited positions and 5.4 nonaccredited positions. Over the time period studied, a mean of 75.8% of programs matched all available positions. Programs that matched fully ranked 9.0 applicants per position, on average, compared with a mean of 6.5 applicants ranked per position among programs that did not fully match (P = .0016).

Conclusion:

From 2010 to 2017, the number of applicants, positions available, overall match rate, and number of programs participating in the orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship match have remained consistent. The mean number of applicants per position ranked by fully matched fellowship programs was 9.0 compared with a mean of 6.5 applicants per position ranked by programs that did not fully match. These data may be helpful as we look to the future of orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship positions and the match process. In addition, this study reveals characteristics that divide sports medicine fellowship programs that fully match from those that do not. Applicants and/or fellowship program directors may utilize this information to modify their approach to the match process going forward.

Trends in research productivity of residents applying for orthopedic sports medicine fellowship

OBJECTIVES

Though there are no research requirements to match into an orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship, many applicants are productive in research endeavors during residency. We hypothesize that the number of publications by Orthopaedic sports medicine applicants are increasing.

METHODS

A list of current and recent sports medicine fellows was compiled from publicly accessible information on sports medicine fellowship websites. Articles published while the fellow was a resident were identified via publicly available search engines. The following information was collected: year of fellowship and years of residency, fellowship program, geographic location of fellowship program, total number of publications (noting specifically first and last author publications), number of publications in high impact orthopaedic journals (AJSM, JBJS Am, JSES, or Arthroscopy).

RESULTS

Overall, 189 fellowship-matched surgeons from 2010 - 2017 were identified. There were 746 publications (average of 3.95 per fellow), with 218 (29.2%) in high impact orthopaedic journals. Surgeons who completed their fellowship during the 2016-17 academic year, published on average 5.42 publications per fellow. Fellowship applicants in the Northeast region had the highest number of total publications (359 publications, 48.1% of all publications; 6.41 publications per fellow). Applicants were listed most often as middle authors (462 publications, 61.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been an overall increase in the number of publications among sports medicine fellowship applicants in the last several academic years. Fellowship programs in the northeast United States tended to match applicants with a higher number of publications.