Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26621936›Full record

ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2015

Consultant perception of general internal medicine: a survey of consultant physicians.

Abigail Moore, Nina Newbery, Andrew F Goddard

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Abigail MooreRoyal College of Physicians, London, UK.
Nina NewberyMedical Workforce Unit, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.
Andrew F GoddardRoyal College of Physicians, London, UK andrew.goddard@rcplondon.ac.uk.
Royal College of Physicians · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Future Hospital Commission has highlighted the need for increased general medical skills in the medical workforce in order to meet the increasing demands on the NHS in terms of patients with increasing age, frailty and complex comorbidities. However there continues to be a lack of clarity around the concept of generalism and general internal medicine (GIM), with differing views on the physician's role in GIM. This survey sought to explore further the roles in which current physicians perceive they are practising GIM as well as views on training in GIM. The survey highlights three key points: (i) that consultant perception and practice of GIM continues to vary dependent on physician specialty; (ii) that the practice of GIM is not limited to the front door but includes the management of patients under the care of a specialty team with general medical needs, be that in an inpatient, outpatient or acute care setting; and (iii) that training in GIM needs to reflect this variation in roles and practice.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceConsultantsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansInternal MedicineState MedicineSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdomconsultant physicianGeneral internal medicineGIM

Identifiers

PMID26621936
PMCPMC4953249
OpenAlexW2187381449

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.