ArticleSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina2005
Continuing medical education in Brazil: what about obstetricians and gynecologists?
Article in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of the adherence of cardiologists to guidelines for the treatment of atrial fibrillation.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextIn Brazil, obstetricians and gynecologists are not required to submit to periodical evaluations to ascertain their professional competence in dealing with new concepts and therapies.
objectivesTo evaluate the performance of a group of obstetricians and gynecologists on a written evidence-based obstetrics test and determine their opinions and use of systematic reviews. TYPE OF STUDY: Prospective cohort.
settingBrazilian Obstetrics and Gynecology Congress 2001.
methods230 doctors agreed to participate in the study during a national obstetrics and gynecology congress. Participants took an individual anonymous written multiple-choice test with seven questions on clinical obstetrics, one question on the interpretation of a meta-analysis graph and two questions on their opinions and actual use of systematic reviews. Scores were analyzed and compared after grouping the participants according to year of graduation, residence training, doctoral program and faculty status.
resultsThe general average score was 49.2 +/- 17.4. The scores tended to decline as the years since graduation advanced. Doctors who graduated in the last five years had higher scores than those who graduated over 25 years ago (52.2 versus 42.9). The performance did not vary according to medical residence, postgraduate program or teaching status. While 98.2% considered systematic reviews relevant, only 54.9% said that they routinely used this source of information. DISCUSSION: The participants' average score was low, even though they were highly qualified and trained. Despite the limitations of the study, the results are worrisome. If motivated physicians participating in a national congress obtained such low scores, we can speculate that the results might be even worse among other doctors that do not attend these events.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that Brazilian obstetricians and gynecologists could benefit from continuing medical education and raise questions about the recycling methods currently available.
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.