ArticleInternational orthopaedics2017
The current state of orthopaedic residency in 18 European countries.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defining minimum expected competencies for orthopaedic surgery residency training in Chile: A national Delphi consensus.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Socioeconomic and demographic predictors of extracurricular achievements among UK medical students (FAST study).BMJ open · 2025Article
- Iran's Orthopaedic Landscape: Distribution, Per-capita Ratios, Female Inclusion, and Academic Standing among Residents and Surgeons.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2025Review
- Post-discharge occurrence of surgical site infections after hip or knee arthroplasty surgery in Poland, a population-based study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Representation of Women on Editorial Boards of Medline-Indexed Spine, Neurosurgery, and Orthopedic Journals.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- Survey of the specializing doctor training in orthopedics and traumatology across university hospitals in Finland.Acta orthopaedica · 2021Article
- Instant messaging application usage for clinical consultation among orthopedic surgery residents in Turkey: A survey study.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2021Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on orthopaedic and trauma surgery training in Europe.International orthopaedics · 2020Article
- Variation in training requirements within general surgery: comparison of 23 countries.BJS open · 2020Article
- Global variability in orthopedic surgery training.Orthopedic reviews · 2019Article
- Improvement of Orthopedic Residency Programs and Diversity: Dilemmas and Challenges, an International Perspective.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2019Article
- Orthopaedic Surgeon Density in South Africa.World journal of surgery · 2018Article
- Citations, non-citations and visibility of International Orthopaedics in 2017.International orthopaedics · 2018Article
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
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare differences in current orthopaedic and trauma training programs across Europe.
methodsA questionnaire was sent to the FORTE (Federation of Orthopaedic Trainees in Europe) representatives of 25 different European countries, of which 18 responded. The questionnaire included demographic information and information concerning the structure of the training programs, including duration, selection, and mandatory training requirements.
resultsThe number of trainees per specialist varied between countries from a ratio of 1:2 to 1:7. Residency was generally five to six years in all the countries. In more than half of the countries selection was interview-based. Nearly all countries utilized a logbook. About 80% of the participating countries had a final examination. When assessing the components of training it was found that only one country (the United Kingdom) had mandatory minimum requirements for (1) courses, (2) surgical procedures, (3) research and (4) leadership. Nearly 40% of the participating countries had only one or none of these four components as a mandatory training requirement.
conclusionsThere are many similarities in training programs, but some important differences remain in overall requirements and final qualification. The main limitation of this study was that we were unable to get data from all the European countries. FORTE will continue to serve as a forum for sharing best practices with the ultimate goal of improving and harmonizing the level of orthopaedic training across Europe. Future studies should aim to include further details about training programs as well as to include data from more countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28210806What 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.