Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22288524›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2012

Prescribing and the core curriculum for tomorrow's doctors: BPS curriculum in clinical pharmacology and prescribing for medical students.

Sarah Ross, Simon Maxwell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Reimagining pharmacology education.Pharmacological reviews · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Reflections on the Core Concepts of Physiology and Pharmacology.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2025
    Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sarah RossDivision of Medical and Dental Education, University of Aberdeen, UK. s.ross@abdn.ac.uk
Simon Maxwell

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prescribing is one of the commonest tasks expected of new doctors and is a complex process involving a mixture of knowledge, judgement and skills. Preparing graduates to be prescribers is one of the greatest challenges of modern undergraduate medical education and there is some evidence to suggest that training could be improved. The aims of this article are (i) to review some of the challenges of delivering effective prescribing education, (ii) to provide a clear statement of the learning outcomes in clinical pharmacology and prescribing that should be expected of all medical graduates and (iii) to describe a curriculum that might enable students to achieve these outcomes. We build on the previous curriculum recommendations of the British Pharmacological Society and take into account those of other key bodies, notably the General Medical Council. We have also reviewed relevant evidence from the literature and set our work in the context of recent trends in medical education. We divide our recommended learning objectives into four sections: principles of clinical pharmacology, essential drugs, essential therapeutic problems and prescribing skills. Although these will not necessarily be accepted universally we believe that they will help those who design and map undergraduate curricula to explore potential gaps and identify improvements.

Indexed as

Drug PrescriptionsClinical CompetenceCurriculumEducation, Medical, UndergraduateHumansPharmacology, Clinical

Identifiers

PMID22288524
PMCPMC3477333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.