Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29163327›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2017

The State of Neurocritical Care Fellowship Training and Attitudes toward Accreditation and Certification: A Survey of Neurocritical Care Fellowship Program Directors.

Rajat Dhar, Venkatakrishna Rajajee, Anna Finley Caulfield, Matthew B Maas, Michael L James, Avinash Bhargava Kumar, Stephen A Figueroa, David McDonagh, Agnieszka Ardelt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors.

Rajat DharDepartment of Neurology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Venkatakrishna RajajeeDepartment of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Anna Finley CaulfieldDepartment of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.
Matthew B MaasDepartment of Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States.
Michael L JamesDepartment of Neurology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.
Avinash Bhargava KumarDepartment of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.
Stephen A FigueroaDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, United States.
David McDonaghDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, United States.
Agnieszka ArdeltDepartment of Neurology (Neurosurgery), University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neurocritical care as a recognized and distinct subspecialty of critical care has grown remarkably since its inception in the 1980s. As of 2016, there were 61 fellowship training programs accredited by the United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties (UCNS) in the United States and more than 1,000 UCNS-certified neurointensivists from diverse medical backgrounds. In late 2015, the Program Accreditation, Physician Certification, and Fellowship Training (PACT) Committee of the Neurocritical Care Society (NCS) was convened to promote and support excellence in the training and certification of neurointensivists. One of the first tasks of the committee was to survey neurocritical care fellowship training program directors to ascertain the current state of fellowship training and attitudes regarding transition to Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accreditation of training programs and American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) certification of physicians. First, the survey revealed significant heterogeneities in the manner of neurocritical care training and a lack of consistency in requirements for fellow procedural competency. Second, although a majority of the 33 respondents indicated that a move toward ACGME accreditation/ABMS certification would facilitate further growth and mainstreaming of training in neurocritical care, many programs do not currently meet administrative requirements and do not receive the level of institutional support that would be needed for such a transition. In summary, the results revealed that there is an opportunity for future harmonization of training standards and that a transition to ACGME accreditation/ABMS certification is preferred. While the results reflect the opinions of more than half of the survey respondents, they represent only a small sample of neurointensivists.

Indexed as

accreditationcertificationfellowshipneurocritical caretraining

Identifiers

PMID29163327
PMCPMC5668669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.