ReviewJournal of women's health (2002)2015
Women's Health Fellowships: Examining the Potential Benefits and Harms of Accreditation.
Review in Journal of women's health (2002), 2015. 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.
- Core Content, Competencies, and Accreditation in US Global Health Fellowships: A Survey of Leaders' Perspectives.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- Advancing Women's Health and Women's Leadership With Endowed Chairs in Women's Health.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This commentary responds to the assertions by Foreman et al. that credentialing of women's health (WH) fellows by the American Board of Medical Subspecialties and accreditation of current and future WH fellowships by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education would improve the health and healthcare of women by increasing the number of primary care providers competent to meet a growing clinical need. They speculate that such accreditation would raise the status of WH fellowships, increase the number of applicants, and result in more academic leaders in WH. They assert that curricular deficiencies in WH exist in physician training and that WH fellowships are the preferred means of training physicians to care for midlife women. We review the evidence to support or refute these claims and conclude that accrediting WH fellowships would not have the forecasted outcomes and would jeopardize the success of current WH fellowships.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.