Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27084273›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2016

Does current provision of undergraduate education prepare UK medical students in ENT? A systematic literature review.

Gary R Ferguson, Irina A Bacila, Meenakshi Swamy

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A randomised trial to assess the educational benefit of a smartphone otoscope in undergraduate medical training.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2021
    Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Measuring Educational Outcomes in Undergraduate Otolaryngology Programs in Two Diverse Way of Teaching-A Prospective Study.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Problem of headache: A cross-sectional study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. A letter in response to the article entitled 'Utility of a smartphone-enabled otoscope in the instruction of otoscopy and middle ear anatomy'.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2020
    Article
  20. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Gary R FergusonEducation Department, Cumberland Infirmary, Carlisle, UK.
Irina A BacilaPaediatric Department, Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull, UK.
Meenakshi SwamyCentre for Medical Education Research, Durham University, Stockton-On-Tees, UK.
Cumberland Infirmary · GBDurham University · GBHull Royal Infirmary · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically identify and analyse all published literature relating to the provision of undergraduate education for preparedness in ear, nose and throat (ENT) surgery, as perceived by medical students and clinicians in the UK.

designSystematic literature review. DATA SOURCES: 5 major databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Cochrane and Web of Science. The literature search was conducted from February to April 2015. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Primary research or studies that report on the provision of undergraduate education for preparedness in ENT, from the perspective of medical students and clinicians in the UK. The timescale of searches was limited from 1999 onwards (ie, the past 15 years). DATA EXTRACTION: The literature search was conducted by 2 independent reviewers. Search terms used involved the combination and variation of 5 key concepts, namely: medical student, clinician, ENT, undergraduate medical education and UK. A data extraction form was designed for and used in this study, based on guidelines provided by the UK National Health Service (NHS) Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Textual narrative synthesis was used for data analysis.

resultsA total of 7 studies were included in the final review. 4 main themes were identified: confidence in managing patients, teaching delivery, student assessment and duration of rotations. A consistent finding in this review was that the majority of final year medical students and junior doctors did not feel adequately prepared to practise ENT. Important factors influencing preparedness in ENT included the duration of clinical rotations, the opportunity for hands-on learning and formal assessment.

conclusionsThe findings of this review suggest the need for further development of the ENT undergraduate curricula across the UK. However, there is insufficient evidence from which to draw strong conclusions; this in itself is beneficial as it highlights a gap in the existing literature and supports the need for primary research.

Indexed as

Career ChoiceCurriculumEducation, Medical, UndergraduateHumansMedical Staff, HospitalOtolaryngologyStudents, MedicalUnited KingdomCliniciansENTMedical StudentsOTOLARYNGOLOGYUK Medical SchoolsUndergraduate Medical Education

Identifiers

PMID27084273
PMCPMC4838693
OpenAlexW2341735475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.