Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27247716›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of radiology2016

Credentialing in radiology: Current practice and future challenges.

Adam Youssef, Paul McCoubrie

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

Adam YoussefAdam Youssef, Paul McCoubrie, Department of Radiology, Southmead Hospital, Bristol BS10 5NB, United Kingdom.
Paul McCoubrieAdam Youssef, Paul McCoubrie, Department of Radiology, Southmead Hospital, Bristol BS10 5NB, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiology has changed significantly in recent years. The volume of work has increased dramatically as has its complexity. Future radiologists need an adequate training and expertise in conventional practice as well as new techniques. This comes at a time when other stakeholders outside of radiology are voicing their own concerns. The rightly justified increasing focus on patient safety has placed even more emphasis on the demonstration of competent practice by all health care professionals. Credentialing has been put forward as a way to ensure a doctor is competent in specific areas. Credentialing may be an alien concept to many radiology trainees but moves are afoot in the United Kingdom to bring it to the forefront of its postgraduate medical training. Credentialing began in 20(th) century North America where it was linked to the process of privileging. It subsequently garnered a strong patient safety focus and has become a part of the international healthcare agenda. Not everyone agrees with credentialing, it has many criticisms including the risk of speciality "turf wars" and the stifling of medical excellence to name just a couple. Is credentialing in radiology here to stay or will it pass by quietly? This paper reviews the global credentialing movement and discusses how this may impact on future radiology training, using the United Kingdom as its case example.

Indexed as

AccreditationCredentialingMedical educationPatient safetyRadiology

Identifiers

PMID27247716
PMCPMC4882407

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.