Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22360893›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2012

How should training of graduates in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics be delivered and assessed?

Peter Jackson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Peter JacksonRoyal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK. peterr.jackson@nhs.net

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The UK postgraduate curriculum in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) incorporates the common competencies required of all physicians and shows how trainees from other specialties, including primary care, can train in CPT. Various models of training and assessment are possible. Evolution of the current system to meet new challenges would maintain an established tradition, with a ready source of training funds. However, this would require greater input from all consultants in CPT, including the training and assessment of trainees. A joint venture with the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine would have the advantage, if the Faculty agreed, of introducing ready-made curriculum modules and assessment tools that have been accepted by the General Medical Council. However, extra modules relevant to CPT would have to be constructed to complement the common areas already in the pharmaceutical medicine curriculum, and there would be a perceived loss of the independence that clinical pharmacologists currently enjoy when making decisions about manufacturers' products. Abandoning externally approved training in CPT would allow the specialty to devise its own training and assessment in the necessary skills. Critically, however, this would impair the status of the specialty and would incur loss of financial support from postgraduate Deaneries. To attract high-calibre trainees, we must completely define CPT training and assessment structures. Most clinical pharmacologists seem to prefer to allow the current structures to evolve under external guidance. However, this will not succeed unless all trained clinical pharmacologists contribute to development of both the curriculum and specific assessment tools, and open their teaching and assessment skills to scrutiny.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceCurriculumEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, GraduateEducation, Pharmacy, GraduateHumansModels, EducationalPharmacology, ClinicalUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID22360893
PMCPMC3391514

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.