Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29205299›Full record

SynthesisClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2018

Key Learning Outcomes for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Education in Europe: A Modified Delphi Study.

David J Brinkman, Jelle Tichelaar, Lidwine B Mokkink, Thierry Christiaens, Robert Likic, Romaldas Maciulaitis, Joao Costa, Emilio J Sanz, Simon R Maxwell, Milan C Richir and 2 more

Abstract readConsensus StatementSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Reimagining pharmacology education.Pharmacological reviews · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

David J BrinkmanDepartment of Internal Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jelle TichelaarDepartment of Internal Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lidwine B MokkinkDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Thierry ChristiaensDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Robert LikicUnit of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Zagreb School of Medicine and Clinical Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Romaldas MaciulaitisInstitute of Physiology and Pharmacology, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Joao CostaDepartment of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
Emilio J SanzFaculty of Medicine, University of La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain.
Simon R MaxwellClinical Pharmacology Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Milan C RichirDepartment of Internal Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Michiel A van AgtmaelDepartment of Internal Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Education Working Group of the European Association for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (EACPT) and its affiliated Network of Teachers in Pharmacotherapy (NOTIP)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Harmonizing clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) education in Europe is necessary to ensure that the prescribing competency of future doctors is of a uniform high standard. As there are currently no uniform requirements, our aim was to achieve consensus on key learning outcomes for undergraduate CPT education in Europe. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of three questionnaire rounds and a panel meeting. A total of 129 experts from 27 European countries were asked to rate 307 learning outcomes. In all, 92 experts (71%) completed all three questionnaire rounds, and 33 experts (26%) attended the meeting. 232 learning outcomes from the original list, 15 newly suggested and 5 rephrased outcomes were included. These 252 learning outcomes should be included in undergraduate CPT curricula to ensure that European graduates are able to prescribe safely and effectively. We provide a blueprint of a European core curriculum describing when and how the learning outcomes might be acquired.

Indexed as

Drug PrescriptionsLearningConsensusCurriculumDelphi TechniqueEducational MeasurementEducational StatusEducation, Medical, UndergraduateEuropeHumansPharmacology, ClinicalSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID29205299
PMCPMC6099198

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.