ArticleIrish journal of medical science2016
Attitudes of GP trainees towards the training received in urology on the GP training scheme.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- LEARN: A multi-centre, cross-sectional evaluation of Urology teaching in UK medical schools.BJU international · 2022Article
- Deficits in urological knowledge and skills among family medicine residents in Canada.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe majority of patients with scrotal problems or urinary symptoms will first present to their general practitioner (GP). The importance of the initial examination performed by the GP is often underestimated; however, it frequently determines the course of investigation and ultimately treatment. Unfortunately, medical schools have devoted increasingly less time to teaching urology over the past decade. The impact of this decline in teaching on a GP trainee's assessment of urological complaints remains unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the self-reported competency of GP trainees in assessing urological presentations.
methodsA questionnaire was circulated to 101 GP trainees from five separate training programmes. Respondents rated their confidence in evaluating four different urological presentations. They were also invited to give their opinion regarding the teaching of urology on their current scheme and whether they would be in favour of the addition of urology as an optional rotation.
resultsOnly 18 trainees (19 %) felt urology was adequately covered on their curriculum. A small yet significant number of respondents felt uncomfortable in their assessment of testicular (28 %, 28/101) or prostate (35 %, 35/101) pathology and male (17 %, 17/101) or female (10 %, 10/101) urinary symptoms. Twenty-six trainees (26 %) would choose a rotation in urology if available. Another ten trainees felt that attending urology outpatient clinics would benefit training.
conclusionThis study highlights a number of concerns among GP trainees in relation to their training in urology. These issues should be addressed to ensure that the training scheme sufficiently prepares GPs to manage common urological conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25673163What 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.