ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2005
Women doctors and their careers: what now? The changing UK medical workforce's effect on planning and delivery of services.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2005. 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.
- Career progression of men and women doctors in the UK NHS: a questionnaire study of the UK medical qualifiers of 1993 in 2010/2011.JRSM open · 2014Article
- Forecasting Japan's physician shortage in 2035 as the first full-fledged aged society.PloS one · 2012Article
- Academic training in rheumatology in 2009: a UK trainee survey.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.