Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 1, 2025

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Racial and Ethnic Bias in Letters of Recommendation in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review
Saarang R Deshpande1, Gina Lepore2, Lily Wieland3
1S.R. Deshpande is a third-year resident in internal medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Purpose:
Letters of recommendations (LORs) are key components of academic medicine applications. Given that bias against students and trainees underrepresented in medicine (UIM) has been demonstrated across assessment, achievement, and advancement domains, the authors reviewed studies on LORs to assess racial, ethnic, and UIM differences in LORs. Standardized LORs (SLORs), an increasingly common form of LORs, were also assessed for racial and ethnic differences.
Method:
A systematic review was conducted for English-language studies that assessed racial or ethnic differences in LORs in academic medicine published from database inception to July 16, 2023. Studies evaluating SLORs underwent data abstraction to evaluate their impact on the given race or ethnicity comparison and outcome variables.
Results:
Twenty-three studies describing 19,012 applicants and 41,925 LORs were included. Nineteen studies (82.6%) assessed LORs for residency, 4 (17.4%) assessed LORs for fellowship, and none evaluated employment or promotion. Fifteen of 17 studies (88.2%) assessing linguistic differences reported a significant difference in a particular race or ethnicity comparison. Of the 7 studies assessing agentic language (e.g., "strong," "confident"), 1 study found fewer agentic terms used for Black and Latinx applicants, and 1 study reported higher agency scores for Asian applicants and applicants of races other than White. There were mixed results for the use of communal and grindstone language in UIM and non-UIM comparisons. Among 6 studies, 4 (66.7%) reported that standout language (e.g., "exceptional," "outstanding") was less likely to be ascribed to UIM applicants. Doubt-raising language was more frequently used for UIM trainees. When SLORs and unstructured LORs were compared, fewer linguistic differences were found in SLORs.
Conclusions:
There is a moderate bias against UIM candidates in the domains of linguistic differences, doubt-raising language, and topics discussed in LORs, which has implications for perceptions of competence and ability in the high-stakes residency and fellowship application process.
Related Concept Videos
Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination
Bias
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
Confirmation Biases
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Surveys
Ethical Issues
Ethical Concerns in Healthcare:

