Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24036703›Full record

ArticleDer Nervenarzt2013

[University teaching in clinical neurology: present situation and future requirements].

S Isenmann, A Biesalski, M Zupanic, C Gerloff

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

S IsenmannKlinik für Neurologie und klinische Neurophysiologie, HELIOS Klinikum Wuppertal, Lehrstuhl Neurologie der Universität Witten/Herdecke, Heusnerstr. 40, 42283, Wuppertal, Deutschland, stefan.isenmann@helios-kliniken.de.
A Biesalski
M Zupanic
C Gerloff

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn German Hospitals there is a lack of medical personnel and doctors in particular. Clinical specialities and hospitals are in competition for students and young doctors and these, in turn, have clear cut demands regarding working conditions and professional training. To date there is considerable heterogeneity regarding clinical teaching in neurology between different German universities. There are no data available for systematic comparison. MATERIAL AND

methodsThis article presents for the first time data from a survey on academic teaching in neurology in German university hospitals. RESULTS AND

conclusionThe data show that many faculties are dedicated to modern and practical teaching methods and have employed state of the art examinations and progress tests. Further and ongoing efforts will be needed in order to inspire medical students and young doctors for this interesting clinical speciality. Connecting individual formats and networking between universities, teaching hospitals, including novel developments together with the young neurologists will help to structure our efforts and increase sustained attractiveness of clinical neurology for the following generations of young doctors.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, GraduateHospitals, UniversityCareer ChoiceClinical CompetenceComputer-Assisted InstructionCurriculumData CollectionGermanyHumansInternship and ResidencyNational Health ProgramsNeurologyProblem-Based LearningSpecialty BoardsWorkforce

Identifiers

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.