Skip to main content
JBJS Open Access logoLink to JBJS Open Access
. 2022 Oct 3;7(4):e22.00061. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.22.00061

Assessing the Impact of COVID-19 on the 2021 Orthopaedic Surgery Match Outcomes

Ridge Maxson 1, Miriyam Ghali 2, Christopher R Leland 1, Gregory R Toci 1, Claire McDaniel 1, Dawn M LaPorte 1, Amiethab A Aiyer *
PMCID: PMC9529039  PMID: 36204395

Background:

The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the 2021 orthopaedic surgery residency match outcomes. Because in-person away rotations and interviews were canceled during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle, we hypothesized that applicants would match at their home program at a higher rate in 2021 than in previous years.

Methods:

We queried allopathic orthopaedic surgery residency websites and social media accounts for names of residents and medical school information for cohorts matching from 2017 through 2021. To assess availability of and participation in virtual away rotations, we administered a survey to Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–accredited allopathic orthopaedic surgery residency programs. The primary outcome was the annual proportion of applicants matching at the program affiliated with their medical school (“home program”). Subgroup analyses were stratified by Doximity reputation ranking and availability of a virtual away rotation.

Results:

We identified 2,632 residents who matched between 2017 and 2020 and 698 residents who matched in 2021. Overall home program match rate and likelihood of home matching were higher in 2021 compared with 2017 to 2020 (28% vs. 20%; odds ratio [OR] = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-1.82, p < 0.001). The increase in the home match rate at programs ranked in the top 30 (27% vs. 20%, p = 0.034) was similar to the increase at programs ranked outside the top 30 (28% vs. 20%, p < 0.001). Of the 66 (48%) programs that responded to the survey, 16 (24%) offered a virtual away rotation. Programs with a higher Doximity ranking were more likely than lower-ranked programs to offer a virtual away rotation (OR = 6.75, 95% CI 1.95-23.4, p = 0.003). Home match rates did not differ significantly between programs that offered a virtual away rotation and those that did not (26% vs. 32%, p = 0.271).

Conclusions:

A higher proportion of orthopaedic surgery residency applicants matched at their home program in 2021 compared with previous years. Limitations on in-person activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to this rise.

Level of Evidence:

N/A.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted several key factors in the orthopaedic surgery residency match process. When evaluating applicants, residency programs historically have valued high US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores, research productivity, and applicants' performance on visiting subinternships (“away rotations”) outside of their home institution1-4. Away rotations can be especially impactful because they facilitate programs' assessment of applicants and applicants' evaluation of prospective programs5,6. Due to the pandemic, however, many applicants had their USMLE testing dates delayed and research projects interrupted7. Nearly 90% of applicants surveyed in one study reported that pandemic-related restrictions limited their clinical exposure to orthopaedics before they applied for residency8. The same study noted that women and African American students were less likely than men and non-Hispanic White students to apply for an orthopaedics residency due to the pandemic8. Finally, and most notably, in-person away rotations and interviews were universally canceled for the 2020 to 2021 orthopaedics residency application cycle9,10.

Applicants and programs were forced to adapt to these major changes. To compensate for the loss of vital in-person experiences, many programs developed novel virtual alternatives such as formal virtual away rotations, entirely virtual interviews, and virtual happy hours with current residents11-13. In addition, Wang et al. reported a 355% rise in use of social media by residency programs looking to recruit potential applicants and convey program strengths14. Meanwhile, applicants applied to more programs than in prior years and were encouraged to bolster their applications by maximizing their USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge score, securing strong letters of recommendation, and focusing on extracurricular activities such as research and volunteering15,16. Previous studies have characterized the responses of programs and applicants during this unprecedented application cycle, but limited information exists on how the pandemic ultimately affected the 2021 match outcomes.

The primary aim of this study was to assess the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the 2021 orthopaedic surgery match outcomes. We hypothesized that the home institution match rate would be higher in 2021 than in prior years because of the lack of in-person experiences available at other institutions. Secondarily, we evaluated the relationships between match outcomes, program ranking, and participation in virtual away rotations.

Methods

Resident Sample and Home Match Rate

We identified allopathic orthopaedic surgery residency programs using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) website17. Subsequently, we collected resident information from the program websites and official social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter) for cohorts matching from 2017 to 2021. Collected data included resident names, medical schools, and residency class size. This information was used to determine which residents matched into their home program (“home match rate”). Home program was defined as any orthopaedic surgery residency program affiliated with an applicant's medical school.

If a program did not report the medical schools attended by their residents, that program was excluded from the home match analysis and subanalyses for that year. Programs affiliated with the US military were also excluded because of differences in selection criteria for their residents18.

Program Ranking and Virtual Away Rotations

We performed subanalyses by categorizing all programs based on Doximity reputation rankings and on whether they offered a formal virtual away rotation in 2020. Doximity is a popular digital platform used by medical professionals, and its orthopaedic surgery residency reputation rankings are determined annually by survey responses from board-certified orthopaedic surgeons19. These rankings are important to applicants and have been shown to affect match list rankings20,21. We recorded the numerical ranking of each program. A lower numerical value indicated a higher ranking, with a ranking of 1 being the highest (e.g., the third-ranked program was assigned a value of 3, and the twelfth-ranked program was assigned a value of 12). Programs were further divided into 2 tiers: those ranked in the top 30 and those ranked lower than the top 30.

In addition, we administered a survey to all included ACGME-accredited orthopaedic surgery residency programs. Both program directors and program coordinators were contacted for study participation to maximize the response rate, and their emails were acquired through the ACGME website. To characterize the geographic distribution of survey respondents, we grouped programs by their geographic region (South, Northeast, Midwest, West) as defined on Doximity22. Emails explained the academic purpose of the survey and posed questions to determine (1) whether the program offered a formal virtual away rotation for visiting medical students during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle and (2) whether the medical students who matched into the program in 2021 participated in the virtual away rotation if one was offered. No incentives were offered for survey participation. Email reminders were sent 4 times, 14 days apart, to programs that had not yet completed the survey.

Statistical Analysis

For this study, we analyzed data using bivariate statistical analysis and provided descriptive statistics. For continuous variables, a 2-tailed Student t test was used to compare groups. Chi-squared tests were used for dichotomous variables, and the Fisher exact test was used for variables with fewer than 5 observations. Odds ratios were generated using univariate logistic regression to identify the likelihood of matching at one's home institution by the tier of program Doximity rank, matching in the 2021 year, and whether the institution offered a virtual rotation in 2020. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. We used Stata Statistical Software, 17.0 SE (StataCorp LLC; 2021), to conduct all analyses.

Results

Home Match Rate

Table I presents the annual home match rates for orthopaedic surgery residency programs between 2017 and 2021. The number of matched applicants and the number of programs for which residents' medical school information was available each year are listed. The overall home match rate during this period was 21.9%. The annual home match rates were 22.2% in 2017, 19.5% in 2018, 19.6% in 2019, 20.2% in 2020, and 27.8% in 2021. The annual home match rates were not significantly different (p > 0.05) between the Doximity top-30 programs and programs ranked outside the top 30 (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Home match rates between 2017 and 2021 based on Doximity reputation ranking. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were found in any year when comparing programs in the top 30 vs. programs below the top 30.

TABLE I.

Home Match Rates for Allopathic Orthopaedic Residency Programs, 2017 to 2021*

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Overall
Included programs (n)
 Overall 127 131 133 131 139 661
 DR 1-30 26 26 27 27 29 135
 DR 31-NR 101 105 106 104 110 526
Total residents matched (n)
 Overall 634 663 668 667 698 3,330
 DR 1-30 183 190 193 202 210 978
 DR 31-NR 451 473 475 465 488 2,352
Home match (n)
 Overall 141 129 131 135 194 730
 DR 1-30 41 36 35 44 57 213
 DR 31-NR 100 93 96 91 137 517
Home match rate (%)
 Overall 22.2 19.5 19.6 20.2 27.8 21.9
 DR 1-30 22.4 18.9 18.1 21.8 27.1 21.8
 DR 31-NR 22.2 19.7 20.2 19.6 28.0 22.0
p-value for DR 1-30 vs. DR 31-NR 0.949 0.834 0.540 0.513 0.801 0.898
*

DR = Doximity reputation rank, and NR, not ranked.

The home match rate also did not vary significantly between 2017 and 2020 (p = 0.838). The overall home match rate during this 4-year period was 20.4%. In the 2021 match, however, the home match rate increased significantly to 27.8% (p < 0.001) (Fig. 2). Compared with previous years, programs ranked in the top 30 (27.1% vs. 20.3%, p = 0.034) and lower-ranked programs (28.0% vs. 20.4%, p < 0.001) experienced significantly higher home match rates in 2021 (Fig. 2). Overall, students matching in 2021 were 51% more likely to match at their home institution compared with students who matched between 2017 and 2020 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-1.82, p < 0.001).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Comparison of home match rates between 2017–2020 and 2021. Significant differences between groups are indicated by an (*) if p ≤ 0.05, (**) if p ≤ 0.01, or (***) if p ≤ 0.001.

Virtual Away Rotation

Responses were obtained from 66 of the 139 programs (47.5%) that received the survey. The geographic distribution of programs that responded was 28.6% South, 28.6% Midwest, 23.3% Northeast, and 19.5% West. The median Doximity reputation ranking of these programs was 67 (interquartile range [IQR] 28-97). Seventeen of these programs (25.8%) were ranked in the Doximity top 30, and the remaining 49 (74.2%) were ranked lower. The median number of students who matched at these programs in 2021 was 5 (IQR 4-6). In total, these programs matched 339 of the 849 applicants (39.9%) who successfully matched into orthopaedic surgery in 2021.

Sixteen of these programs (24.2%) reported offering a formal virtual rotation for visiting medical students during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle. The programs that offered virtual away rotations matched 93 residents in 2021. Among these residents, 49 (52.7%) completed a virtual away rotation at the program they matched into, 24 (25.8%) matched into their home program, and 20 (21.5%) matched at programs with which they were unaffiliated. In addition, the home match rate among all respondents was 30.3% (102/339). The home match rate was not significantly different between programs that offered a virtual away rotation and those that did not (25.8% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.271).

The average Doximity reputation ranking of programs that offered a virtual away rotation (36.2, 95% CI 20.9-51.4) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than the average ranking of programs that did not offer a virtual away rotation (78.1, 95% CI 65.6-90.6). Compared with lower-ranked programs, programs ranked in the Doximity top 30 were significantly more likely (OR = 6.75, 95% CI 1.95-23.4, p = 0.003) to offer a virtual away rotation.

Discussion

Orthopaedic surgery continues to be one of the most competitive residency fields for medical students to match into, with just 64.9% of senior medical students in the United States matching successfully in 202223. Navigating the match process became more challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic, which severely limited in-person interactions between applicants and programs. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the possible effects of the pandemic on 2021 orthopaedic surgery residency match outcomes. Our findings validated our hypothesis that a greater proportion of students applying for orthopaedics residency in 2021 would match at their home program compared with previous application cycles. These results mirror the findings of similar recent studies in plastic surgery, urology, otolaryngology, and dermatology24-28.

In this study, approximately 20% of students who matched into an orthopaedic surgery residency between 2017 and 2020 matched at their home program. Across this period, home match rates were comparable between the Doximity top 30 programs and programs ranked lower. The home match rate for orthopaedics residencies seems to have remained rather stable over the previous decade. Cox et al. reported that 21% of orthopaedics applicants matched into their home program between 2011 and 2015, with no significant changes to home match rates occurring in that period29. Affiliated students, faculty, and residents generally gauge compatibility through formal subinternships, research projects, or informal shadowing. Importantly, students are afforded an extended look into resident camaraderie and program culture at their home institution, and programs have more opportunities to assess students' work ethic and teamwork skills. Greater familiarity with these critical intangible factors may facilitate matches between students and their home programs.

For the 2021 orthopaedic surgery match, however, we found that the overall home match rate increased to 28%, which was significantly higher than in prior years. This trend was similar across programs, regardless of their Doximity reputation ranking. COVID-19–related changes may have increased the likelihood of orthopaedics applicants matching at their home programs. In a typical match cycle, in-person away rotations play a major role in guiding the preferences of applicants and programs3-6. During the 2020 to 2021 cycle, however, 82% of applicants altered their rank list due to the lack of in-person away rotations11. Applicants and program directors also felt that residency program social events during the cycle were not replicated well in the virtual setting11. Without adequate opportunities to evaluate each other, unaffiliated programs and applicants may have weighed home program affiliation more heavily when they developed their match rank lists30.

In addition, we found that program ranking was strongly associated with likelihood of offering a virtual away rotation. Virtual away rotations have rapidly emerged as an innovative response to the cancellation of in-person aways during the pandemic. However, less than half of programs surveyed in this study reported offering a virtual away rotation in 2020, which was similar to the findings of previous studies11,14. Furthermore, programs ranked in the Doximity top 30 were more likely than lower-ranked programs (OR = 6.75) to offer a virtual away rotation. Although the reason for this finding was not assessed in this study, higher-ranked programs might have expected to receive greater interest from unaffiliated students and therefore might have been more motivated to develop a virtual away rotation to accommodate these prospective applicants. Despite their inherent limitations, virtual rotations can offer applicants greater flexibility to connect with more programs of interest while mitigating the financial burden and stresses associated with securing in-person away rotations31,32. The results of this study suggest that applicants to lower-ranked programs might have been less likely to experience the benefits of virtual away rotations during this application cycle.

Among applicants who matched at programs that offered a virtual rotation, 53% completed a virtual rotation at the program they matched into. Slightly higher match rates have been reported for students who completed in-person away rotations in prior cycles. For example, a survey of students in the 2013 orthopaedics match found that 58% matched at a program where they performed an in-person away rotation33. A possible explanation for this difference is that programs may have placed less emphasis on virtual rotations when considering applicants during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle. Indeed, program directors ranked virtual rotations in the 2020 to 2021 cycle as a less important selection criterion than away rotations in the previous cycle14. Programs were also less likely to invite back virtual away rotators for an interview compared with in-person rotators in prior years11,12. It remains unclear how student performance on virtual away rotations will factor into the orthopaedics applicant evaluation process as in-person away rotations resume.

This study was not without limitations. Determination of annual home match rates depended on the availability of information found on program websites and social media, and the lack of data for residents at some programs precluded a comprehensive assessment. The study also did not assess the relationship between 2021 match outcomes and certain historically important selection criteria such as clerkship grades, research productivity, or Alpha Omega Alpha status. Furthermore, the Doximity reputation rank system is one of the multiple systems used to judge the quality of orthopaedics residencies. Another example is the Jones ranking, first described by Jones et al., which ranked programs based on the number of citations received by publications from the orthopaedics department from 2005 to 201534. The Doximity system was chosen because it reflects the opinions of orthopaedic surgeons; accordingly, it must be interpreted in light of its inherent subjectivity. In addition, this study considered formal virtual away rotations as a single entity, but the components of virtual away rotations—such as duration, didactic sessions, and interaction with attending physicians—may have varied between programs12,13. The findings related to virtual away rotations may also be subject to response bias due to the survey response rate of 48%. However, the response rate was comparable with previous studies surveying orthopaedics residency programs14,35,36. The median program ranking, program size, and geographic distribution of programs that responded may also enhance the generalizability of our results.

Conclusion

Without in-person away rotations or interviews due to the COVID-19 pandemic, orthopaedic residency programs matched applicants from affiliated medical schools at a higher rate in 2021 than in prior years. Home match rates increased similarly regardless of program ranking. Although higher-ranked programs were more likely to offer a virtual away rotation, offering a virtual away rotation did not significantly affect the home match rate. The pandemic accelerated the evolution of the orthopaedic surgery match landscape by prompting the creation of virtual substitutes for customarily in-person experiences. This study offers insight into the effect of these changes on match outcomes. Future studies may evaluate how match outcomes are affected when both in-person and virtual away rotations are offered during the same application cycle.

Acknowledgments

Note: For their editorial assistance, we thank Rachel Box, MS, Denise Di Salvo, MS, and Sandy Crump, MPH, in the Editorial Services group of The Johns Hopkins Department of Orthopaedic Surgery.

Footnotes

Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJSOA/A420).

Contributor Information

Ridge Maxson, Email: jmaxson1@jhmi.edu.

Miriyam Ghali, Email: miriyam.ghali@med.miami.edu.

Christopher R. Leland, Email: cleland1@jhmi.edu.

Gregory R. Toci, Email: gtoci@jhmi.edu.

Claire McDaniel, Email: cmcdan11@jhmi.edu.

Dawn M. LaPorte, Email: dlaport1@jhmi.edu.

References

  • 1.DePasse JM, Palumbo MA, Eberson CP, Daniels AH. Academic characteristics of orthopaedic surgery residency applicants from 2007 to 2014. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(9):788-95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ngaage LM, Mb C, Xue S, A Benzel C, Andrews A, M A Rawes C, Wilson RH, Ludwig SC, M Rasko Y. The orthopaedic match: defining the academic profile of successful candidates. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2021;29(21):921-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Huntington WP, Haines N, Patt JC. What factors influence applicants' rankings of orthopaedic surgery residency programs in the National Resident Matching Program? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(9):2859-66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Porter SE, Jobin CM, Lynch TS, Levine WN. Survival guide for the orthopaedic surgery match. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017;25(6):403-10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.O'Donnell SW, Drolet BC, Brower JP, LaPorte D, Eberson CP. Orthopaedic surgery residency: perspectives of applicants and program directors on medical student away rotations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017;25(1):61-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Baldwin K, Weidner Z, Ahn J, Mehta S. Are away rotations critical for a successful match in orthopaedic surgery? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(12):3340-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hammoud MM, Standiford T, Carmody JB. Potential implications of COVID-19 for the 2020-2021 residency application cycle. JAMA. 2020;324(1):29-30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Danford NC, Crutchfield C, Aiyer A, Jobin CM, Levine WN, Lynch TS. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on orthopaedic surgery residency applicants during the 2021 residency match cycle in the United States. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2020;4(11):e2000103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, American Medical Association. Final report and recommendations for medical education institutions of LCME-accredited, U.S. Osteopathic, and non-U.S. Medical school applicants; 2020. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/system/files/2020-05/covid19_Final_Recommendations_Executive%20Summary_Final_05112020.pdf. Accessed January 24, 2022.
  • 10.Council of Orthopaedic Residency Directors. AOA Council of Orthopaedic Residency Directors (CORD) letter to orthopaedic surgery residency programs; 2020. Available at: https://studentsresidents.aamc.org/media/9561/download. Accessed December 10, 2021.
  • 11.Tawfik AM, Imbergamo C, Chen V, Filtes P, Butler A, Gatt C, Katt BM. Perspectives on the orthopaedic surgery residency application process during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2021;5(10):e21.00091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Haws BE, Mannava S, Schuster BK, DiGiovanni BF. Implementation and evaluation of a formal virtual medical student away rotation in orthopaedic surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: a single institution pilot experience. JB JS Open Access. 2021;6(3):e21.00037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mason MW, Aruma JFC. An orthopaedic virtual clinical clerkship for visiting medical students: early successes and future implications. J Surg Educ. 2022;79(2):535-42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wang KY, Babu J, Zhang B, Jami M, Musharbash F, LaPorte D. Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the orthopaedic surgery residency application process: what can we learn? J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2021;5(10):e21.00204. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Newsome K, Selvakumar S, McKenny M, Elkbuli A. Shifting the Surgical Residency Match to a 100% Virtual Interview Format During the COVID-19 Pandemic, How has It Affected Placement Into Surgical Training Programs? [published online ahead of print, 2021 Nov 3]. Am Surg. 2021;31348211047498. doi:10.1177/00031348211047498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Aiyer AA, Granger CJ, McCormick KL, Cipriano CA, Kaplan JR, Varacallo MA, Dodds SD, Levine WN. The impact of COVID-19 on the orthopaedic surgery residency application process. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020;28(15):e633-e641. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. ACGME–Accreditation Data System (ADS). Available at: https://apps.acgme-i.org/ads/Public. Accessed June 10, 2021.
  • 18.Belmont PJ, Hoffmann JD, Tokish JM, Arrington ED, Shawen SB, Orr JD. Overview of the military orthopaedic surgery residency application and selection process. Mil Med. 2013;178(9):1016-23Accessed June 10, 2021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Doximity. Residency Navigator: Our Residency Research Methodology; 2022. Available at: https://assets.doxcdn.com/image/upload/v1/pdfs/residency-navigator-survey-methodology.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Smith BB, Long TR, Tooley AA, Doherty JA, Billings HA, Dozois EJ. Impact of Doximity Residency Navigator on graduate medical education recruitment. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2018;2(2):113-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Rolston AM, Hartley SE, Khandelwal S, Christner JG, Cheng DF, Caty RM, Santen SA. Effect of Doximity residency rankings on residency applicants' program choices. West J Emerg Med. 2015;16(6):889-93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Doximity. Doximity Residency Navigator. Available at: https://www.doximity.com/residency/programs?specialtyKey=bd234238-6960-4260-9475-1fa18f58f092-orthopaedic-surgery&sortByKey=alphabetical&trainingEnvironmentKey=all&intendedFellowshipKey=. Accessed March 30, 2022.
  • 23.National Resident Matching Program. Advance Data Tables: 2022 Main Residency Match; 2022. Available at: https://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Advance-Data-Tables-2022-FINAL.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Asadourian PA, Murphy AI, Marano AA, Rohde CH, Wu JK. Home field advantage: assessing the geographic trends of the plastic surgery residency match during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Surg Educ. 2021;78(6):1923-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Patel SR, Mayer WA, Taylor JM. Urology match outcomes during the coronavirus pandemic. J Urol. 2021;206(2):194-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bernstein JD, Harmon M, Watson D. COVID-19 and the otolaryngology residency match: rising incidence of home matches. Laryngoscope. 2022;132:1934-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Abdelwahab R, Antezana LA, Xie KZ, Abdelwahab M, Tollefson M. Cross-sectional study of dermatology residency home match incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87(4):886–888. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2021.12.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Faletsky A, Zitkovsky H, Guo L. The impact of COVID-19 on plastic surgery home program match rates. Ann Plast Surg. 2022;88(1):4-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cox RM, Sobel AD, Biercevicz A, Eberson CP, Mulcahey MK. Geographic trends in the orthopedic surgery residency match. J Grad Med Educ. 2018;10(4):423-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Khalafallah YM, Markowitz M, Levine WN, LaPorte DM, Aiyer AA. Orthopaedic surgery residency application, and selection criteria adaptations, in times of COVID-19: a survey study. JBJS Open Access. 2022;7(2):e21.00145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Asaad M, Glassman GE, Allam O. Virtual rotations during COVID-19: an opportunity for enhancing diversity. J Surg Res. 2021;260:516-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gordon AM, Conway CA, Sheth BK, Magruder ML, Vakharia RM, Levine WN, Razi AE. How did coronavirus-19 impact the expenses for medical students applying to an orthopaedic surgery residency in 2020 to 2021? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2022;480(3):443-51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Higgins E, Newman L, Halligan K, Miller M, Schwab S, Kosowicz L. Do audition electives impact match success? Med Educ Online. 2016;21:31325. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Jones LB, Goel S, Hung LY, Graves ML, Spitler CA, Russell GV, Bergin PF. Objective methodology to assess meaningful research productivity by orthopaedic residency departments: validation against widely distributed ranking metrics and published surrogates. J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32(4):e139-e144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Shultz PA, Kamal RN, Daniels AH, DiGiovanni CW, Akelman E. International health electives in orthopaedic surgery residency training. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(3):e15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Fan B, Zhao C, Sabharwal S. International elective during orthopaedic residency in North America: perceived barriers and opportunities. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(1):e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from JBJS Open Access are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES