OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the publication rate for orthopaedic trauma resident research projects that receive grant funding and the long-term academic involvement of the grant recipients.
METHODS:
METHODS: Retrospective.
METHODS: Publically available records for resident research grant recipients.
UNASSIGNED: Resident research grants on orthopaedic trauma topics from Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA), AO North America (AONA), and Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation from 2000 to 2022.
UNASSIGNED: Subsequent related publications, grant size, time to publication, sustained academic involvement of the residents as measured by academic position, total number of publications, and h-index.
RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-seven orthopaedic trauma grants (OTA 117, AONA 225, and OREF 55) were identified. A total of 38% (151) of grants resulted in a publication with no significant difference between agencies (P = 0.94). The average amount awarded was $9,843, with no correlation to publication (P = 0.63). The mean time to publication was 3.57 ± 2.33 years. The time to publication for AONA was significantly longer than for OTA (4.14 vs. 2.83 years, P = 0.004). There was no difference in total publications, h-index, or NIH grants between grant recipients from different agencies. More OTA grant recipients held an academic position compared with AONA grant recipients (63% vs. 43%, P = 0.003). Grant awardees with initial publication success were 1.7 times as likely to have a future academic appointment (P = 0.014) and had 1.9 times the number of publications than those without (P = 0.001). Awardees with an h-index in the top quartile were significantly more likely to have published than those with an h-index in the bottom quartile (P = 0.007).
CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than half of orthopaedic trauma-related resident research grants resulted in a publication with comparable rates across agencies. Grant size did not predict publication success. Publication success was a positive predictor of continued academic involvement. Most publications occurred within 5 years, suggesting that these grants may be most helpful in career development if awarded during the first 1-2 years of a 5-year orthopaedic residency program.

Background Despite the increased use of telemedicine, the evidence base on virtual supervision in graduate medical education (GME) is not well described. Objective To systematically review the impact of virtual supervision on trainee education, patient care, and patient satisfaction in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited specialties. Methods Two databases (PubMed, EMBASE) were searched from database inception to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed, full-text, English-language articles reporting the use of virtual supervision in GME in ACGME-accredited specialties. Exclusion criteria were studies involving direct supervision, supervisors who were not credentialed physicians, or non-GME trainees. Two investigators independently extracted data and appraised the methodological quality of each study using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The reporting of this systematic review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Results Of 5278 records identified, 26 studies met the eligibility criteria. Virtual supervision was predominantly utilized in operating rooms and inpatient settings, facilitating clinical examinations or surgical procedures through videoconferencing software in specialties such as dermatology, neurosurgery, and orthopedics. However, some studies reported technical challenges that hindered effective teaching and communication. Based on self-reported surveys, supervisor and trainee satisfaction with virtual supervision was mixed, while patient satisfaction with the care was generally high. The MMAT ratings suggested limitations in sampling strategy, outcome measurement, and confounding factors. Conclusions Virtual supervision was applicable to various specialties and settings, facilitating communication between supervisors and trainees, although there were some technological challenges.

UNASSIGNED: Gender gap is a neologism that identifies the disparity between social and professional conditions experienced by females compared to males. The disparity increases as one ascends the academic hierarchy. In recent years, the debate has expanded, and more options have been planned for the elimination of the current gender gap.
UNASSIGNED: This research was conducted by examining the landscape of the gender gap, particularly in the academic forensic medicine field. Our analysis involved reviewing papers published between 2006 and 2024, identified through electronic database searches (PubMed). The search terms used were: \"gender gap\" AND \"academic\" AND \"medicine\" AND \"leadership.\" In total, we analyzed 85 papers. Additionally, we examined data from forensic medicine residency programs.
UNASSIGNED: The representation of women in medicine is well-known. Despite the increasing number of women in leadership positions in medicine, they still lag significantly behind men. These data highlight a situation that could be seen as grounds for an accusation of \"academic abuse\". In the Italian forensic residency programs, less than 20% are led by women, and among these, not all hold the rank of full professor. Although a certain rebalancing is already underway, the gap is still significant. There are already regulations obliging local authorities to promote gender equality in councils, companies, and institutions under their jurisdiction. It would be desirable to consider minimum quotas for female participation in university competitions. This would be a first step toward eliminating the gender gap in academic and forensic medical fields.

BACKGROUND: Letters of recommendation are considered an important factor in the holistic ranking of orthopaedic residency applications. The standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR) was introduced in 2017 in response to the inherent bias and limited comparative value of traditional LORs. It includes standardized questions about an applicant\'s orthopaedic qualifications, designed to enable fair comparisons among candidates. However, disparate and inconsistent findings have made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from individual studies on the SLOR and narrative letter of recommendation.
OBJECTIVE: In this systematic review we asked: (1) What is the distribution of applicant SLOR rating among nine domains and summative scores? (2) Are there applicant characteristics associated with SLOR ratings? (3) Is there gender and racial bias in the SLOR and narrative letter of recommendation?
METHODS: PubMed, EBSCO, and Google Scholar electronic databases were queried on March 20, 2023, to identify all studies evaluating SLOR and narrative letter of recommendations between January 1, 2017, and March 20, 2023. Articles that evaluated orthopaedic SLOR or narrative LORs were included. Systematic reviews, case reports, duplicate studies between databases, and grey literature such as abstracts and articles on preprint servers were excluded. Eight studies including 6179 applicants and 18,987 letters of recommendation were included in the final analysis. The applicant classes ranged from years 2014 to 2020. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool for cross-sectional studies. The mean JBI score of included studies was 7.4 out of a maximum of 8, with higher scores indicating better quality. The primary outcome was to determine the distribution of applicant SLOR rankings in their summative score. Summative scores were separated into ranked to match, top one-third, middle one-third, lower one-third, and not a fit. Four studies reported the summative SLOR scores of applicants. Our secondary study goal was to assess applicant characteristics associated with SLOR summative scores and assess any bias present in the SLOR or narrative recommendation. Five studies compared SLOR ratings across applicant characteristics including gender, race, USMLE Step 1 score, USMLE Step 2 score, Alpha Omega Alpha (AΩA) membership, clerkship grades, and publications. Gender and racial bias were also assessed across five studies. Four studies utilized a linguistic analysis software to search letters of recommendation for differences in word category use by gender and race.
RESULTS: Studies consistently found that a higher percentage of candidates were identified in the top percentile blocks than is mathematically possible. For example, the two studies that tallied the proportion of candidates ranking in the top 10% of applicants found that 36% and 42% were rated as being in the top 10%. Similarly, articles found more than 87% of applicants scored in the top one-third. Studies had mixed results, but in general, they suggested that AΩA status, higher Step 1 scores, and more research publications have a slightly positive association with increased SLOR scores. We found no evidence of gender bias against women, and in fact, most studies evaluating word choices found word choices for women candidates generally were stronger. Similarly, no consistent disparities were identified in word categories utilized in SLORs based on applicant race.
CONCLUSIONS: Most notably, a mathematically impossible proportion of applicants were counted in the top percentiles in letters of recommendation. This compromises readers\' abilities to differentiate candidates. Factors like AOA status and research publications displayed a modest positive correlation with SLOR scores. Gender bias against women or candidates from racial minority groups was not evident.
CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that group SLOR authorship, with a consensus assessment by clerkship or residency directors, should be considered. We also recommend the incorporation of mean and SD scores for each letter writer (or group) alongside their letters. Furthermore, studies indicate that submitting all four SLOR letters can substantially improve an applicant\'s chances of success. We advise students to choose strategically and submit the maximum allowable number of SLORs.

BACKGROUND: The successful integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical practice is contingent upon physicians\' comprehension of AI principles and its applications. Therefore, it is essential for medical education curricula to incorporate AI topics and concepts, providing future physicians with the foundational knowledge and skills needed. However, there is a knowledge gap in the current understanding and availability of structured AI curriculum frameworks tailored for medical education, which serve as vital guides for instructing and facilitating the learning process.
OBJECTIVE: The overall aim of this study is to synthesize knowledge from the literature on curriculum frameworks and current educational programs that focus on the teaching and learning of AI for medical students, residents, and practicing physicians.
METHODS: We followed a validated framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance for scoping reviews. An information specialist performed a comprehensive search from 2000 to May 2023 in the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and Scopus as well as the gray literature. Papers were limited to English and French languages. This review included papers that describe curriculum frameworks for teaching and learning AI in medicine, irrespective of country. All types of papers and study designs were included, except conference abstracts and protocols. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts, read the full texts, and extracted data using a validated data extraction form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, and if this was not possible, the opinion of a third reviewer was sought. We adhered to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist for reporting the results.
RESULTS: Of the 5104 papers screened, 21 papers relevant to our eligibility criteria were identified. In total, 90% (19/21) of the papers altogether described 30 current or previously offered educational programs, and 10% (2/21) of the papers described elements of a curriculum framework. One framework describes a general approach to integrating AI curricula throughout the medical learning continuum and another describes a core curriculum for AI in ophthalmology. No papers described a theory, pedagogy, or framework that guided the educational programs.
CONCLUSIONS: This review synthesizes recent advancements in AI curriculum frameworks and educational programs within the domain of medical education. To build on this foundation, future researchers are encouraged to engage in a multidisciplinary approach to curriculum redesign. In addition, it is encouraged to initiate dialogues on the integration of AI into medical curriculum planning and to investigate the development, deployment, and appraisal of these innovative educational programs.
UNASSIGNED: RR2-10.11124/JBIES-22-00374.

Background Although the selection interview is a standard admission practice for graduate medical education (GME) programs in the United States, there is a dearth of recent reviews on optimizing the trainee interview process, which has low reliability, high cost, and major risk of bias. Objective To investigate the evidence base for different selection interview practices in GME. Methods We searched 4 literature databases from inception through September 2022. Two investigators independently conducted title/abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and quality assessment. Disagreements were mediated by discussion. We used backward reference searching of included articles to identify additional studies. We included studies of different interview methods and excluded literature reviews, non-GME related publications, and studies comparing different applicant populations. We examined study characteristics, applicant and interviewer preferences, and interview format. We evaluated study quality using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Results Of 2192 studies, 39 (2%) met our inclusion criteria. The evidence base was rated as moderately low quality using MERSQI criteria. Applicants reported preferences for several one-on-one interviews lasting 15 to 20 minutes, interviews by current trainees, and interviews including social events with only trainees. Applicants had mixed perceptions of virtual versus in-person interviews and reported that virtual interviews saved costs. The multiple mini interview (MMI) required more applicant and interviewer time than individual interviews but demonstrated construct and predictive validity and was preferred by applicants and interviewers. Conclusions Based on moderately low-quality evidence, using the MMI, training interviewers, and providing applicants with basic program information in advance should be considered for GME selection interviews.

OBJECTIVE: Despite increases in the US foreign-born population, medical education opportunities in immigrant and refugee health (IRH) remain limited. We summarize findings for published IRH curricula and offer recommendations for integrating IRH into pediatric residency programs.
METHODS: We performed a literature review of articles describing the design, implementation, or assessment of IRH curricula for US-based undergraduate and graduate medical trainees.
RESULTS: The literature review identified 36 articles from 21 institutions describing 37 unique curricula. Three curricula included pediatric residency programs. Commonly taught topics included cultural humility, interpreter use, and immigration status as a social determinant of health. Immigrant-focused training experiences existed at continuity clinics, clinics for refugees or asylum seekers, and dedicated electives/rotations. Curricula were most frequently described as stand-alone electives/rotations.
CONCLUSIONS: IRH curricula provide opportunities to develop skills in clinical care, advocacy, and community partnerships with immigrant populations. Pediatric residency programs should align the IRH curriculum with existing learning priorities, support and hire faculty with expertise in IRH, and partner with community organizations with expertise. Programs can also consider how to best support learners interested in careers focusing on immigrant populations. Further work is needed to establish competencies and validated tools measuring trainee satisfaction and clinical competency for IRH curricula.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, there is an increase in scrutiny after surgical treatment of a vast array of pathologies. Doing so, a large body of evidence clearly supports centralisation, such as teaching hospitals, where a larger caseload enables optimal outcomes. These institutions have a strong presence of surgical residents seeking training in both technical and non-technical skills. Inevitably, as part of training, they will be involved in the surgical treatment of those patients, even as the primary operator. We sought to investigate the impact of trainee performed procedures in outcomes of common vascular procedures of different technical complexity.
METHODS: A non-systematic MEDLINE and Scopus databases review on the outcomes of resident performed common vascular procedures was performed.
RESULTS: Specific evidence in many procedures (venous disease, aortic aneurysms, peripheral artery disease) is lacking. After carotid endarterectomy (CEA), resident performed procedures seem to have similar cranial nerve palsy and stroke when compared to expert surgeons. Generally, resident-performed primary radiocephalic and elbow arteriovenous fistula (AVF) presents similar primary and secondary patency. As with CEA, AVF procedures performed by residents took longer. On aortic aneurysms, although no specific comparison has been performed, resident involvement (irrespective of surgeon or assistant) in these procedures does not seem associated with increased adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: In most vascular surgery procedures, little is known about resident performance and their impact on outcomes. Notwithstanding, resident-performed CEA and primary AVF seem free of major compromise to patients. Further research is warranted to clarify this topic.

BACKGROUND: Resident performance on the Plastic Surgery In-Service Examination (PSITE) is used as a predictor of success on the American Board of Plastic Surgery Written Examination, as well as resident progression and fellowship applications. However, information specifically addressing strategies on optimal PSITE preparation is lacking in the plastic surgery literature when compared to general surgery. For this reason, we aim to understand if the topic is well-studied and denote effective study strategies and curricular interventions in both fields that can help residents and programs optimize PSITE performance.
METHODS: A literature search including studies from 2012 to 2022 was conducted following PRISMA guidelines in PubMed and EMBASE to identify articles on strategies to improve in-service exam scores for general surgery and plastic surgery. Only studies that reported measurable outcomes in raw score, percentile score, or percent correct were included.
RESULTS: Qualitative analysis of 30 articles revealed 2 categories of interventions: individual study habits and institutional curricular interventions. In general surgery literature, 27 articles examined interventions positively impacting resident ABSITE scores, with 21 studies classified as institutional curricular interventions and 6 articles addressing individual study habits. Themes associated with improved ABSITE performance included mandatory remediation programs, dedicated study time, and problem-based learning interventions. In contrast, only 3 articles in plastic surgery literature discussed interventions associated with improved PSITE scores, all falling under curricular interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Unfortunately, the plastic surgery literature lacks concrete evidence on how residents can improve performance. Future research in plastic surgery should replicate successful strategies from general surgery and further investigate optimal preparation strategies for the PSITE. Such endeavors can contribute to improving resident performance and advancing plastic surgery education and patient care.

BACKGROUND: Effective mentorship is an important component of medical education with benefits to all stakeholders. In recent years, conceptualization of mentorship has gone beyond the traditional dyadic experienced mentor-novice mentee relationship to include group and peer mentoring. Existing theories of mentorship do not recognize mentoring\'s personalized, evolving, goal-driven, and context-specific nature. Evidencing the limitations of traditional cause-and-effect concepts, the purpose of this review was to systematically search the literature to determine if mentoring can be viewed as a complex adaptive system (CAS).
METHODS: A systematic scoping review using Krishna\'s Systematic Evidence-Based Approach was employed to study medical student and resident accounts of mentoring and CAS in general internal medicine and related subspecialties in articles published between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2023 in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases. The included articles underwent thematic and content analysis, with the themes identified and combined to create domains, which framed the discussion.
RESULTS: Of 5,704 abstracts reviewed, 134 full-text articles were evaluated, and 216 articles were included. The domains described how mentoring relationships and mentoring approaches embody characteristics of CAS and that mentorship often behaves as a community of practice (CoP). Mentoring\'s CAS-like features are displayed through CoPs, with distinct boundaries, a spiral mentoring trajectory, and longitudinal mentoring support and assessment processes.
CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing mentorship as a CAS demands the rethinking of the design, support, assessment, and oversight of mentorship and the role of mentors. Further study is required to better assess the mentoring process and to provide optimal training and support to mentors.