ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2002
What knowledge and skills are essential for specialists in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics? Results of a Delphi study.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How should training of graduates in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics be delivered and assessed?British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2012Article
- Clinical pharmacology--a sleeping beauty?British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2006Article
- Recent advances in drug action and therapeutics: relevance of novel concepts in G-protein-coupled receptor and signal transduction pharmacology.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2004Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo identify the knowledge and skills that should be considered essential for specialists in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (CPT) with a commitment to the National Health Service (NHS).
methodsA Delphi study using a sample of current specialists.
resultsMembers of the expert panel (20 in all, representative of the Clinical Section membership) identified 78 statements for consideration, in four domains (core of knowledge, therapeutic skills, educative skills, and investigative skills), of which 58 (74.4%) were accepted by more than two-thirds of respondents. Of these, 35 were knowledge items, whereas 23 were skills (11 therapeutic, 4 educative and 8 investigative). The large majority (79.3%) of these statements were endorsed by at least four out of five panel members.
conclusionsDespite the varied work patterns and responsibilities of specialists in CPT, it is possible to identify a core of knowledge and skill that most consider essential for the delivery of their commitment to the NHS. The findings will provide NHS Trusts with a clear idea of what they can expect from these specialists, and will act as a checklist for specialists themselves to direct their Continuing Professional Development within the consultant appraisal process. The results also describe a curriculum for continuing education in CPT, which the BPS Clinical Section can use to develop information resources and training opportunities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.