The levels of many essential minerals decrease during pregnancy if un-supplemented, including calcium, iron, magnesium, selenium, zinc, and possibly chromium and iodine. Sub-optimal intake of minerals from preconception through pregnancy increases the risk of many pregnancy complications and infant health problems. In the U.S., dietary intake of minerals is often below the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), especially for iodine and magnesium, and 28% of women develop iron deficiency anemia during their third trimester. The goal of this paper is to propose evidence-based recommendations for the optimal level of prenatal supplementation for each mineral for most women in the United States. Overall, the evidence suggests that optimal mineral supplementation can significantly reduce a wide range of pregnancy complications (including anemia, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, hyperthyroidism, miscarriage, and pre-eclampsia) and infant health problems (including anemia, asthma/wheeze, autism, cerebral palsy, hypothyroidism, intellectual disability, low birth weight, neural tube defects, preterm birth, rickets, and wheeze). An evaluation of 180 commercial prenatal supplements found that they varied widely in mineral content, often contained only a subset of essential minerals, and the levels were often below our recommendations. Therefore, there is a need to establish recommendations on the optimal level of mineral supplementation during pregnancy.

Background: Applicants to orthopaedic surgery residency programs face a competitive match. Internet resources such as program websites allow prospective applicants to gauge interest in particular programs. This study evaluated the content and accessibility of orthopaedic surgery residency program websites. Methods: Existing orthopaedic surgery residency programs for the 2020 application cycle were identified on the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) website. Individual program websites were accessed through links directly from the ERAS website, and a Google search for each program was performed to corroborate accessibility. Programs websites were then reviewed and evaluated on the presence of 20 criteria selected for their potential to influence resident recruitment (10) and education (10), respectively. The results were compared with the lone 2001 study and with orthopaedic fellowship website analyses. Results: One hundred eighty-nine orthopaedic surgery residency programs were accredited at the time of the study. Only 6 programs (3.2%) did not have a website identifiable through ERAS or Google searches, leaving a final sample size of 183 websites. Approximately 73.3% of all recruitment content and 44.9% of education content were present on the websites available. There was a significant increase in all available recruitment and education content (p < 0.05) when compared with the lone 2001 study. Orthopaedic residency program websites provide comparable recruitment content at a higher rate (71.1%) than orthopaedic fellowship websites (59.6%) but fall slightly below average in presentation of education content (44.9% vs 45.9%). Conclusion: This is the first study in nearly 20 years to assess the content and accessibility of orthopaedic residency program websites. There is noticeable variability in the presentation of website content, but approximately 73.3% of recruitment content and 44.9% of the educational content were easily accessible through internet search. Orthopaedic surgery residency programs and their applicants may benefit from standardization of program websites and an increase in recruitment and education content.

Introduction: A new system was implemented by the Association of American Medical Colleges called the preference signaling program for the 2022 to 2023 orthopaedic surgery residency match. Applicants were able to signal 30 orthopaedic surgery programs to indicate high interest in a specific program. The purpose of this study was to address how important signaling was to an orthopaedic surgery program this 2022 to 2023 application cycle. Methods: A five-question survey was sent to orthopaedic surgery residency programs participating in the Electronic Residency Application Service this application cycle. Contact information was gathered through the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education residency website and program websites. Results: Responses were obtained from 69 of the 151 programs (46%) contacted. The average number of applicants per program was 727 (range, 372 to 1031, SD 155). Thirty-four of 61 respondents (56%) stated that 100% of their interviewees signaled their program. Fifty-five of 61 respondents (90%) indicated that their interviewee pool consisted of 75% or more applicants who signaled. Applicants who signaled had a 24.4% (range, 12.77 to 47.41, SD 8.04) chance of receiving an interview. Applicants who did not signal had just a 0.92% (range, 0 to 13.10, SD 2.08) chance of receiving an interview. Fifty-four of the 63 applicants (86%) answered that signaling played an important role in considering an applicant for an interview. Conclusion: Over half of the responding programs only interviewed applicants who signaled their program, and over 90% of programs' interview lists consisted of at least 75% of signaling applicants. Eightysix percent of programs indicated that signaling played an important role in considering an applicant for an interview. Applicants who signaled were 26.5 times more likely to receive an interview than those who did not (P , 0.0001). With this information, applicants can narrow