Ophthalmology Residency Match Research Articles

Characterizing the initial effects of the single accreditation system merge on the ophthalmology residency match

ABSTRACT Introduction In 2020, the American Osteopathic Association merged its residency programs into one system under the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). The effects of this transition on the ophthalmology match is not fully understood. The purpose of this study is to assess the early impact of the transition to ACGME accreditation on MD, DO, and IMG representation in ophthalmology residency programs. Materials and Methods Information about resident medical degree and resident medical school was gathered from ophthalmology residency program websites from a resident class before and after the Transition. Additionally, the medical degree of residency program directors (PD) was collected to analyze MD vs DO leadership in ophthalmology residency programs and to further stratify resident data to identify any trends in PD preference for different medical graduates. Results Data was obtained for 915 ophthalmology residents in 110 residency programs that met the study’s inclusion criteria. Of these programs, 102 were allopathic with MD leadership, 1 was allopathic with DO leadership, 3 were osteopathic with MD leadership, and 4 were osteopathic with DO leadership. Overall, MD representation increased while DO and IMG representation decreased although not significantly. For both classes analyzed, DO and IMG representation was disproportionately low. Discussion The transition to ACGME accreditation seems to have primarily harmed DO and IMG applicants in the ophthalmology match while benefitting MDs. Various factors such as loss of protected residency positions for DO applicants and the closure of osteopathic ophthalmology residency programs are likely reasons to blame for this decrease in osteopathic representation.

Analysis of Reapplicants to Ophthalmology Residency: Factors Associated with Successful Matching

ABSTRACT Background Ophthalmology residency programs are highly competitive and each year there are many unmatched reapplicants who must make time-sensitive decisions on how to prepare for their reapplication. Our analysis of reapplication factors will be the first evidence-based guide to reapplying ophthalmology. Objective To determine the components of a reapplicants application that contribute and that do not contribute to ophthalmology residency match success. Methods Eighty-eight total reapplicants to Dell Medical School’s Department of Ophthalmology residency program for the year of 2022 and 2023 were analyzed in a retrospective review in 2023 based on their San Francisco match applications. We assessed match success in the context of demographics, academic performance, cognitive measures, letters of recommendation, personal statements, and extracurricular activities. Results Of 84 reapplicants who completed the San Francisco Match, 41 matched successfully (48.8%). Factors that significantly affected match success include quantity of LORs written by ophthalmologists (P = .0143), choice of interim year activity (p = .0019), and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge score (P = .0017). Our findings demonstrate that noncontributory factors to reapplicant match rate include number of publications during research years, demographics, clinical grades, Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership, LOR qualities, and Step 1 score. Conclusions Ophthalmology residency reapplicants should focus their efforts on finding a research year or established pre-ophthalmology residency program for their interim year and bolstering their letters of recommendations within the field. The quality of in-specialty relationships and letters of recommendation are more impactful than the number of publications during a research gap year. Step 2 CK score is a significant factor but would have already been determined by the time of reapplication. Metrics such as Step 1 scores, AOA status, number of volunteering experiences, and LOR and personal statement qualities had no effect on a reapplicant’s chance of matching.

The Ophthalmology Residency Match Experience With Interview Caps.

The Ophthalmology Residency Match Experience With Interview Caps.

Attending Perceptions on the Use of Preference Signaling in the Ophthalmology Residency Application Process.

Objective This article characterizes perspectives of ophthalmologists involved in the residency selection process regarding the potential impact of preference signaling on the ophthalmology residency match. Methods An anonymous online questionnaire generated from SurveyMonkey was approved by the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology (AUPO) Data Resource Committee for distribution to 391 individuals from the AUPO Departmental Chairs, Program Directors, and Directors of Medical Student Education email listservs in August 2022. Results A total of 96 (24.6%) ophthalmology faculty completed the questionnaire. The majority ( n = 76, 79.2%) agreed or strongly agreed that preference signaling should be implemented in the ophthalmology residency application system. Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that preference signaling will allow for more holistic reviews of applications ( n = 55, 57.3%), agreed or strongly agreed that it will benefit applicants who do not have connections to home programs or faculty that can reach out to desired programs ( n = 81, 84.4%), and agreed or strongly agreed that it will improve the distribution of interviews to applicants ( n = 76, 79.2%). Participants agreed or strongly agreed that applicants who have signaled interest in their program will receive preference when offering interviews ( n = 59, 61.5%), and those signals will be used as a tiebreaker for similar applications ( n = 75, 78.1%). The majority of participants believed that the ideal number of preference signals' applicants should be given three to four signals ( n = 35, 36.0%) or five to six signals ( n = 29, 30.2%). Conclusion A majority of ophthalmology faculty surveyed support the integration of preference signaling into the ophthalmology residency match.

The Big Data Gap: Asymmetric Information in the Ophthalmology Residency Match Process and the Argument for Transparent Residency Data.

Background The ophthalmology match is an important step for graduating medical students that defines their future career. Residency programs demonstrate significant variability due to differences in size, location, research output, subspecialty exposure, surgical case load, and alumni fellowship/practice placement. Despite the importance of informed decision-making, applicants often find limited, inconsistent information about potential programs. Purpose The purpose of this study was to characterize and identify gaps in the information available to residents in the 2022 to 2023 Match. Methods The SFMatch Web site was reviewed to identify programs included as well as characteristics cited on each program's webpage. Program webpages were used to evaluate availability and consistency of data on site surgical caseload, fellowship slots, and teaching staff. Results Of the 121 programs included on SFMatch, 23 (19%) provided no data on August 15, 2022 (15 days prior to application submission deadline) and 9 (7%) lacked program data on October 15, 2022. Though most programs provided mean cataract volume, data on volume of other procedures for graduating residents was highly variable and occasionally misleading. Programs did not provide information on several academic and social considerations that may influence match ranking choice. Conclusion Applicants often must read "between the lines" to identify residency program strengths and weaknesses. Data crucial to informing the application process remain sparse, unavailable, or spread across resources. Limited data increases applicant dependence on word-of-mouth knowledge to inform decision-making. This might reduce diversity by limiting successful applicants to those with existing connections within the field.

The ophthalmology residency match: a new era.

The average number of applications per ophthalmology residency applicant continues to rise. The present article reviews the history and negative impacts of this trend, the dearth of effective solutions and the potential promise of preference signalling as an alternative strategy to address this and potentially improve match outcomes. Application inflation adversely impacts applicants and programmes and undermines holistic review. Most recommendations to limit volume have been largely unsuccessful or undesirable. Preference signalling does not restrict applications. Early results from initial pilots in other specialties are promising. Signalling has the potential to facilitate holistic review, reduce interview hoarding and promote equitable distribution of interviews. Preliminary data suggest preference signalling could be a useful strategy to address current issues with the Match. Building upon the blueprints and experiences of our colleagues, Ophthalmology should conduct its own investigation and consider a pilot project.

Impact of COVID-19 on the Ophthalmology Residency Home-Institution Match Rate

Abstract Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the ophthalmology residency match results to determine changes in the rate of home-institution matches during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods Aggregate deidentified summary match result data from 2017 to 2022 was obtained from the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology and the San Francisco (SF) Match. A chi-squared test was performed to determine if the rate of candidate matching to the home residency program in ophthalmology was higher in the post-COVID-19 compared with pre-COVID-19 match years. A literature review using PubMed was performed of other medical subspecialty match rates to home institution during the same study period. Results A chi-squared test for difference in proportions confirmed a significantly higher chance of matching to the home program for ophthalmology in the post-COVID-19, SF Match year of 2021 to 2022 compared with 2017 to 2020 (p = 0.001). Other medical specialties including otolaryngology, plastic surgery, and dermatology also showed similar increased home institution residency match rates during the same time period. Although neurosurgery and urology also had increased trend rates for home institution match rates, these results did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions The ophthalmology home-institution residency SF Match rate was significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic year 2021 to 22. This mirrors a trend reported in other specialties including the otolaryngology, dermatology, and plastic surgery in the 2021 match. Additional study will be required to identify factors leading to this observation.

Trends in Racial and Ethnic Diversity of Ophthalmology Residents and Residency Applicants

The proportions of individuals who are underrepresented in medicine (URiM) in ophthalmology lag behind their proportions within the US population. Diversity trends have been studied in other specialties, but literature examining trends in ophthalmology is lacking. In this study, we investigate trends in the racial and ethnic demographics of ophthalmology residents and residency applicants. Trend study. Demographic data of all residency programs across all specialties were extracted from Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education yearly reports from 2011 to 2019. Data from 2016 to 2019 on ophthalmology match applicants were analyzed using the 2020 Ophthalmology Residency Match Summary Report and the 2020 Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology Residency Gender & Ethnicity Summary. Linear trends were examined by the Cochran-Armitage test. From 2011 to 2019, the raw percentage of URiM ophthalmology residents increased from 4.7% (66/1419) to 5.8% (85/1473) (P < .001) whereas that of surgical specialties decreased from 9.9% (2164/21,967) to 9.1% (2370/26,082) (P < .001). The percentage of URiM ophthalmology match applicants increased from 5.9% (43/726) of all applicants to 11.8% (87/741) from 2016 to 2019 (P < .001), and the percentage of URiMs matching into ophthalmology increased from 4.9% (23/467) of all participants to 10.8% (52/484) from 2016 to 2019 (P < .001). Although there has been a positive trend in the percentage of URiMs applying and matching into ophthalmology, a lack of racial and ethnic diversity relative to other specialties persists. Strategies are needed to increase diversity in the field.

Geographic Trends in the Ophthalmology Residency Match: Influence of Program and Applicant Characteristics.

Introduction The ophthalmology residency match remains competitive. Several prior studies have examined various factors that contribute to a successful match into an ophthalmology residency program; however, the role of geographic location in the ophthalmology residency match process is unclear. The purpose of our study was to evaluate geographic trends in the ophthalmology residency match and to determine whether geographic trends vary based on program level factors such as program rank or funding source and/or applicant factors such as year of training, gender, and medical degree earned. Specifically, we assessed associations with residents training at the residency program affiliated with their medical school and/or within the same geographic region as their medical school, using data obtained through publicly available sources and residency program surveys. Methods We used the American Medical Association's Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database database to identify accredited ophthalmology residency programs. Residency program Web sites and email inquiries were used to collect demographic and geographic information for residents in the graduating classes of 2021 to 2023. Statistical analysis included χ 2 testing and multivariate logistic regression. Results In total, 1,378 residents were included from 110 ophthalmology residency programs and 218 medical schools. Residents who matched at the residency program affiliated with their medical school (18%) were evenly distributed among the Midwest, Northeast, South, and West regions ( p = 0.2236). Residency programs in the West (31.7%) matched fewer regional medical students compared with programs in the South (61.2%), Midwest (57.4%), and Northeast (58.4%) ( p < 0.0001). Attending a publicly funded medical school was associated with higher odds of matching into a regional residency program (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.90; p = 0.0001) and attending a privately funded medical school was associated with higher odds of matching into a top-ranked residency program (OR, 1.53, 95% CI, 1.34-1.82; p = 0.0002). Conclusions The majority of current ophthalmology residents trained at programs in the same geographic region as their medical schools, with nearly 20% of residents training at their medical school-affiliated program. Geographic differences in match results were observed based on resident gender, medical school characteristics, and residency program region.

Transparency in the Ophthalmology Residency Match: Background, Study, and Implications

BackgroundMedical students are applying to dramatically more ophthalmology residency programs than in the past, causing an increased administrative burden for programs and financial harm to students. This study considers the background of this situation and looks at how a lack of transparency surrounding potential residency match filters contributes. Furthermore, this study raises several potential solutions to this lack of transparency that may increase the functionality of the ophthalmology residency match.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine the availability and consistency of potential ophthalmology residency match filters through training program websites and the American Medical Association’s (AMA) Residency & Fellowship Database (FREIDA).MethodsThis study was a cross-sectional observational study of ophthalmology residency program websites and AMA's FREIDA database entries. For 119 ophthalmology residency programs, five potential filters were evaluated for both availability and consistency on individual residency websites and FREIDA. These filters were: (1) whether a program required a minimum United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score; (2) minimum number of letters of recommendation required; 3) whether a minimum USMLE Step 2 score was required; (4) if the program accepts the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) sequence in lieu of the USMLE; and (5) ability of the residency to sponsor a visa (J-1, H-1B, or F-1). Each program's website and FREIDA entry were independently evaluated by two authors to increase validity, with a third author brought in to break the tie in case of a disagreement.ResultsOnly two ophthalmology residency programs had information about all five filters both available and consistent on their website and FREIDA. Inter-reviewer reliability was 92.5%.ConclusionsInformation about potential filters used in the ophthalmology residency match is neither publicly available nor consistent. This lack of transparency may contribute to the phenomenon of medical students applying to dramatically more ophthalmology residency programs. A standardized database of these filters is needed to increase transparency to applicants, which may reduce the expenses of medical students and the workload of program directors.

Applicant Perceptions Regarding the 2020 to 2021 Virtual Ophthalmology Residency Interview and Match Season.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has significantly impacted medical education, notably the mandate for all residency programs to implement virtual (rather than in-person) residency interviews. Understanding residency applicants' perceptions and approach to this novel virtual interview season will be beneficial as potential future interview formats are considered. Objective The aim of this study was to examine perceptions of the 2020 to 2021 ophthalmology residency match applicants regarding the virtual interview season prior to the start of the interview season. Patients and Methods Ophthalmology residency applicants during the 2020 to 2021 cycle were invited to complete the survey between October 20 and 29, 2020. Respondent demographic information, perceived importance of various application details in a normal versus virtual interview season, strengths and limitations of virtual interviews, and preferences for optimal virtual interview format were obtained. Results There were 337 survey respondents, with at least 50% of the survey completed by 190 applicants (56%). Of these, 73% of respondents applied to more than 60 ophthalmology residency programs, and 78% felt that the evaluation of candidates would be impacted by the virtual interview format. Regardless of interview format, United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score and letters of recommendation were perceived to be the two most important factors related to matching at an applicant's top ranked programs. The primary limitation of a virtual interview season was the inability to experience a program's culture in person, while largest strength was cost savings. Conclusion The ophthalmology residency match is a competitive process made potentially more complex by a novel virtual interview format. A detailed postcycle analysis will be important to optimize future interview seasons.

Ophthalmology Residency Match in the Covid-19 Era: Applicant and Program Director Perceptions of the 2020–2021 Application Cycle

ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate the experiences and preferences of ophthalmology residency applicants and program directors (PDs), with emphasis on the effect of COVID-19 as well as recent changes on the application process. Design Cross-sectional, online survey Participants All applicants to the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute ophthalmology residency program, and all United States ophthalmology residency PDs, during the 2020–2021 application cycle. Methods An online survey was distributed to applicants and program directors of the 2020–2021 ophthalmology residency application cycle. Main Outcome Measures: Applicant demographics, application submissions, interview experiences, financial considerations, match results, and suggestions for improvement of the application process. Results: Responses were obtained from 205 applicants (34.9% response rate) and 37 PDs (30.3%). A successful match into an ophthalmology residency was achieved by 144 (83.7%) applicants. Applicants applied to (mean ± SD) 79.7 ± 22.8 ophthalmology residency programs, received 13.1 ± 8.9 invitations to interview, and attended 11.1 ± 5.8 interviews. Most applicants (N = 126; 71.2%) and PDs (N = 22; 78.6%) expressed a preference for in-person interviews over virtual interviews. If given a choice regarding the future direction for interviews, most applicants were unsure (N = 68; 38.4%) or would prefer to hold interviews virtually (N = 62; 35.0%); PDs felt that interviews should go back to being in-person (39.3%) or were unsure (28.6%). Most PDs (N = 21; 72.4%) reported an increased number of applications received by their respective programs this year compared to previous years. While applicants (N = 108; 61.0%) mostly felt that there should not be a cap on the number of applications, 19 (67.9%) PDs supported a limit on application numbers. Applicants spent an average (SD) of $2320.96 ($1172.86) on the application process this year, which is significantly less than 2018–2019 data. Conclusions The ophthalmology residency application process was especially complex during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although many applicants and PDs were glad that interviews were held virtually this year, they were less certain regarding future years. The virtual format led to a significantly lower financial burden for applicants and may lead some to prefer this format in the future; if a hybrid model is offered for virtual/in-person interviews, these two interview modes should be compared equally.

COVID-19 and the Ophthalmology Residency Match: Data from Applicants' Perspectives

Abstract Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a profound impact on medical education, particularly for those applying to residency programs in 2020 to 2021. This study describes the challenges for potential ophthalmology residency applicants so that residency leadership can make informed decisions about changes to the process. Methods A survey was distributed electronically via social media and medical school ophthalmology interest groups from June 18, 2020 to July 2, 2020 to individuals interested in applying to ophthalmology residency in the United States. Survey questions included demographics and perceived impacts of COVID-19 on ability, confidence, intention to apply, and perceptions toward changes in the application process for the 2020 to 2021 ophthalmology residency application cycle. Results One-hundred sixteen total responses were received. Eighty-six responses (74%) were from individuals intending to apply in the 2020 to 2021 application cycle. Most respondents (86%) felt that their application would be affected by COVID-19 with 51% feeling less confident. Only four (5%) felt that they could adequately compile a rank list following a video interview, and over half (51%) anticipated applying to more programs than they originally intended. Academic plans of seven (8%) respondents were significantly altered via deferral of application or cancellation of a research year. Thirty-nine (45%) students reported delayed ophthalmology electives, with less than half (41%) feeling that they had adequate clinical exposure to be prepared for residency. Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic has had a substantial impact on the 2020 to 2021 ophthalmology residency application cycle. As stakeholders begin to approach this cycle, these findings will help them make effective and informed decisions to create the best overall experience for all involved.

The Impact of Away Rotations on the Ophthalmology Residency Match

Abstract Background The ophthalmology residency match is highly competitive, and fourth-year medical students frequently complete away rotations at other institutions hoping to increase their chances of matching. Objective The study aimed to determine the impact of away rotations on the ophthalmology residency selection process and to provide recommendations to faculty for counseling fourth-year medical students as they prepare for the ophthalmology match. Methods A survey was sent in June 2020 to program directors (PDs), medical student educators (MSEs), and residents at 119 accredited ophthalmology residency programs via the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology e-mail listserv. The 43 PDs and 38 MSEs who responded were asked questions about their views regarding away rotations and visiting students during the residency selection process. The 83 resident respondents were asked about their interview and match success after completing away rotations. Categorical variables were analyzed by Chi-square test. Results The majority of PDs and MSEs typically recommend that fourth-year medical students complete away rotations (p = 0.022 and p = 0.194, respectively). The majority believe that an away rotation will increase the chance of the applicant matching with the host institution (p = 0.004 and p = 0.001, respectively). The vast majority of PDs were more likely to offer an interview to a visiting student compared with another equally qualified applicant (p &lt; 0.001). However, only one-third of PDs were typically more likely to rank an away rotator higher on their rank list (p = 0.047). Two-thirds of residents completed at least one away rotation in medical school (mean = 1.7 rotations). The majority received interview invitations from at least some of their host institutions (p &lt; 0.001). Approximately one-fifth ultimately matched at a host residency program (p &lt; 0.001). Conclusion The majority of ophthalmology PDs and MSEs surveyed recommend that fourth-year medical students complete away rotations and believe that these rotations will increase the chance of the applicant matching at a host institution. The PDs are more likely to offer an interview to a visiting student compared with another equally qualified applicant. For some programs, visiting students may also receive special consideration by being ranked higher on a program's rank list and being more likely to match.

Trends in Canadian ophthalmology residency match outcomes.

BackgroundTo date, there exists no formal assessment of the competitiveness of the residency match for Canadian ophthalmology programs. The primary objective of this study was to use Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) data to describe trends in the number of positions, number of applicants and level of competition for the Canadian ophthalmology match.MethodsThe number of positions and the number of applicants for each ophthalmology program were received from CaRMS for each cycle of the match from 2006-2017. The level of competition was calculated by dividing total number of applicants by the total number of positions in any given year.ResultsThe level of competition was consistently high with a median number of 2.0 applicants per anglophone Canadian Medical Graduate (CMG) position, 2.6 applicants per francophone CMG position and 32.5 applicants per International Medical Graduate (IMG) position. Over the study period, the level of competition decreased for francophone CMG and IMG positions and did not change for anglophone CMG positions.ConclusionConsistently there are a greater number of applicants than positions for Canadian ophthalmology residency programs and therefore CMG applicants should be encouraged to apply to more than one discipline. The trends in the number of residency positions can be used to update supply projections for ophthalmologists and guide human resource planning.

Current Applicant Perceptions of the Ophthalmology Residency Match

The ophthalmology residency application process is critical for applicants and residency programs, and knowledge about the preferences of applicants would assist both groups in improving the process. To evaluate the experiences and preferences of ophthalmology residency applicants. This cross-sectional, nonvalidated survey was conducted online. All applicants to the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute ophthalmology residency program during the 2018-2019 application cycle were invited to complete the survey. Data collection occurred from April 1, 2019, to April 30, 2019. Applicant demographics, application submissions, interview experiences, financial considerations, match results, and suggestions for improvement of the application process. Responses were received from 185 applicants (36.4%), including 77 women (41.6%). A successful match into an ophthalmology residency was achieved by 172 respondents (93.0%). There was a mean (SD) US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score of 245.8 (13.3) points. Respondents applied to a mean (SD) of 76.4 (23.5) ophthalmology residency programs, received 14.0 (9.0) invitations to interview, and attended 10.3 (4.4) interviews. Choices regarding applications and interviews were based mostly on program reputation, location, and advisor recommendation. A usual lead time of at least 3 weeks between the invitation and interview was reported by 126 respondents (69.2%), which was reduced to 14 respondents (15.1%) when a wait-list was involved. The ophthalmology residency application process cost a mean (SD) of $5704 ($2831) per applicant. Respondents reported that they were most able to reduce costs through housing choices (hotel stays or similar arrangements) and least able to reduce costs by limiting the number of programs to which they applied or at which they interviewed. The ophthalmology residency application process is complex and poses substantial challenges to applicants and residency programs. These findings suggest that many current applicants have difficulty selecting programs to apply to, and most respondents desired changes to the current system of interview invitations and scheduling.

Prevalence of Post-Interview Communication in the Ophthalmology Match and Its Impact on Program Directors' Ranking of Applicants

Abstract Objective The aim of this study is to investigate the prevalence of post-interview communication (PIC) during the ophthalmology residency match process and its impact on program directors' (PD's) ranking of applicants. Design Prospective cross-sectional survey. Methods An anonymous, online survey was emailed to the PD of each ophthalmology residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Results Fifty-four percent (63/116) of PDs completed the survey. Eighty-five percent (54/63) of PDs received PIC from applicants or applicants' faculty mentors during the 2018 to 2019 application cycle; 62% (39/63) received PIC regarding &gt;25% of applicants interviewed. Although 41% (26/63) of PDs reported they would likely rank an applicant higher due to PIC endorsement from a faculty mentor known to the PD, only 3% (2/63) believed that applicants who did not have a faculty mentor conduct PIC on their behalf were disadvantaged. Fourteen percent (9/63) of PDs reported they would likely rank an applicant higher due to PIC endorsement from a faculty mentor unknown to the PD, and 3% (2/63) reported they would likely rank an applicant higher as a result of PIC from the applicant. Conclusion There is a high prevalence of PIC during the ophthalmology residency match process. The potential impact of PIC on PDs' ranking of applicants varies according to whether the PIC is from a faculty member known to the PD, a faculty member unknown to the PD, or the applicant. This may disadvantage applicants without faculty mentors known to PDs.

Probability of Success in the Ophthalmology Residency Match: Three-Year Outcomes Analysis of San Francisco Matching Program Data.

To develop a probability model of matching into a US ophthalmology residency program using San Francisco Matching Program (SF Match) data. Retrospective data analysis of de-identified application and matching data. Registrants for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 ophthalmology residency matches conducted by the SF Match. Descriptive statistics of candidates, comparison of continuous and categorical variables between matched and nonmatched candidates, and linear regression modeling were performed. A recursive partitioning method was used to create a probability of matching algorithm. Probability of successfully matching based on quantifiable candidate characteristics. Over the 3-year period, 1,959 individuals submitted an average of 64 applications and received a mean of nine interview invitations. The overall match rate was 71%, with 78% matching at one of their top five choices. Successful matches were more likely to occur in US medical school graduates (78% vs 20%, p < 0.001) and applicants on their first attempt (76% vs 29%, p < 0.001). The association between matching and number of programs applied became negative with > 48 applications. Probability of matching was "high" (> 80%) among US graduates with a step 1 United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)score>243(regardless of number of programs applied to), a step 1 USMLE score of 231 to 243 who applied to at least 30 programs, and first-time applicants with a step 1 score >232. No international medical graduates or repeat applicants had a "high" probability of matching. Although advice must be individualized for each candidate, applicants for ophthalmology residency who fall into a "high" probability of matching group are likely to be successful with applications to 45 or fewer programs. Applying to 80 or more programs should be considered for international medical graduates and/or applicants who are previously unmatched. Modification of the match application data form may allow more detailed analysis of variables such as Alpha Omega Alpha or Gold Humanism Honor Society membership, research activity, and composite evaluation on a standardized letter of recommendation.

Key Word Use in Letters of Recommendation for Ophthalmology Residency Applicants According to Race, Gender, and Achievements

Objectives To identify differences in letters of recommendation (LORs) of applicants to a single ophthalmology residency program by gender, race, academic performance, and match outcome. Design This was a retrospective analysis of LORS for 2,523 applicants (7,569 letters) to the University of California, Irvine ophthalmology residency program from 2011 to 2018. Methods Programming scripts were employed to determine the number of times 22 key words from four thematic categories (standout words, ability, grindstone, and compassion) appeared in LORs for each applicant. A chi-square test was performed to assess for possible differences in the presence of each key word by the following characteristics: gender, underrepresented minority (URM) status, Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership, the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 1 score, and match outcome. Linear regressions were created to determine the frequency at which words in each thematic category appeared according to the same baseline characteristics. Results In the LORs, females were more likely to be described as “empathetic” (p = 0.002), URMs were more likely to be described as “caring” (p = 0.002), high Step 1 scorers (≥240) were more likely to be described as “outstanding” (p = 0.002), and matched students were more likely to be described as “exceptional” (p = 0.001), “outstanding” (p &lt; 0.001), and “superb” (p = 0.001). Standout words appeared more often in the LORs of AOA members, matched candidates, and high Step 1 scorers (p &lt; 0.001 for all comparisons). “Competent” appeared more commonly in LORs for low Step 1 scorers (p &lt; 0.001) and unmatched applicants (p = 0.001). Conclusion This study identifies differences in LORs by gender, URM status, and achievement including successful ophthalmology residency match. Females and URMs were more likely to be described as “empathetic” and “caring,” respectively; otherwise, we detected no gender or racial disparities in key word use in LORs. Candidates with high USMLE Step 1 scores or AOA membership had a higher frequency of standout words in their LORs. Whether they were truly more qualified in various dimensions or if they benefited from a halo effect bias warrants further investigation. There was a significant difference in the number of standout words in LORs between matched and unmatched applicants, suggesting that key word frequency may be a relevant metric for LOR appraisal.

Not a Cheap Investment: Estimating the Cost of the 2017 to 2018 Ophthalmology Residency Match to the Applicant and Program

Purpose To estimate the cost of the match process for all ophthalmology applicants and the departmental costs at the University of Kentucky during the 2017 to 2018 match cycle. Design Financial analysis. Methods Using the available national match statistics for the 2017 to 2018 ophthalmology residency match and the mean of all residency interview costs available in the literature, the estimated mean and total match costs were calculated for all applicants, including application fees and interviews. Program costs were estimated based on direct interview costs, lost productivity, and fixed costs. Results Of 625 applicants, 475 matched into an ophthalmology residency position in 2017 to 2018. The mean estimated cost was US$6,613 for matched applicants, and all applicants spent US$4,646,950 on the match in aggregate. Our department spent an estimated US$179,327 over four interview days with 12 faculty volunteers, or an average of US$3,736 per each of 48 interviewed applicants. Conclusions and Relevance Matching into an ophthalmology residency position is expensive not only for the applicant but also the program. Reforms to the process would likely be beneficial to both parties.