ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2015
Subject preferences of first- and second-year medical students for their future specialization at Chitwan Medical College and Teaching Hospital, Chitwan, Nepal - a questionnaire-based study.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A cross-sectional investigation of trend in career specialty preference among clinical year medical undergraduates, including factors influencing preferences and discouragement.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Training of young medical professionals: implementation of modern training concepts, taking into account the changed framework conditions for training-a pilot project for operational subjects.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Specialty preferences of studying-abroad medical students from low- and middle-income countries.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Role of basic sciences in making of a clinician: Perspectives of medical students from North India.Journal of education and health promotion · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe selection of a discipline for future specialization may be an important factor for the medical students' future career, and it is influenced by multiple factors. The interest of students in the early stages can be improved in subjects related to public health or of academic importance, as per need.
methodsA questionnaire-based study was conducted among 265 first- and second-year medical students of Chitwan Medical College, Nepal to find out their subject of preference for postgraduation and the factors affecting their selection along with their interesting basic science subject. Only the responses from 232 completely filled questionnaires were analyzed.
resultsThe preference of the students for clinical surgical (50.9%), clinical medical (45.3%), and basic medical (3.9%) sciences for postgraduation were in descending order. The most preferred specialty among male students was clinical surgical sciences (56.3%), and among female students, it was clinical medical sciences (53.6%). Although all the students responded to their preferred specialty, only 178 students specified the subject of their interest. General surgery (23.4%), pediatrics (23.4%), and anatomy (2.4%) were the most favored subjects for postgraduation among clinical surgical, clinical medical, and basic medical sciences specialties, respectively. More common reasons for selection of specific subject for future career were found to be: personal interests, good income, intellectual challenge, and others.
conclusionMany students preferred clinical surgical sciences for their future specialization. Among the reasons for the selection of the specialty for postgraduation, no significant reason could be elicited from the present study.
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.