Revalidation: a critical perspective.

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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Professional autonomy and surveillance: the case of public reporting in cardiac surgery.Sociology of health & illness · 2019
   Article
2. Policing the profession? Regulatory reform, restratification and the emergence of Responsible Officers as a new locus of power in UK medicine.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2018
   Article
3. The general practitioner workforce crisis in England: a qualitative study of how appraisal and revalidation are contributing to intentions to leave practice.BMC family practice · 2016
   Article
4. Paper trials: a qualitative study exploring the place of portfolios in making revalidation recommendations for Responsible Officers.BMC medical education · 2016
   Article
5. Insightful Practice: a robust measure of medical students' professional response to feedback on their performance.BMC medical education · 2015
   Article
6. Standardisation and Its Discontents.Cognition, technology & work (Online) · 2015
   Article
7. Insightful practice: a reliable measure for medical revalidation.BMJ quality & safety · 2012
   Article
8. Revalidation.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011
   Article
9. Revalidation.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Revalidation.2011
• Commented on by
  Revalidation.2011

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as