ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2018
Developing an Assessment Framework for Essential Internal Medicine Subspecialty Topics.
Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Internal Medicine Residents' Knowledge and Practice of Pulmonary Tuberculosis Diagnosis.Open forum infectious diseases · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssessing residents by direct observation is the preferred assessment method for infrequently encountered subspecialty topics, but this is logistically challenging.
objectiveWe developed an assessment framework for internal medicine (IM) residents in subspecialty topics, using tuberculosis diagnosis for proof of concept.
methodsWe used a 4-step process at 8 academic medical centers that entailed (1) creating a 10-item knowledge assessment tool; (2) pilot testing on a sample of 129 IM residents and infectious disease fellow volunteers to evaluate validity evidence; (3) implementing the final tool among 886 resident volunteers; and (4) assessing outcomes via retrospective chart review. Outcomes included tool score, item performance, and rates of obtaining recommended diagnostics.
resultsFollowing tool development, 10 infectious disease experts provided content validity. Pilot testing showed higher mean scores for fellows compared with residents (7 [SD = 1.8] versus 3.8 [SD = 1.7], respectively,
conclusionsOur assessment framework revealed knowledge and practice gaps in tuberculosis diagnosis in IM residents. Adopting this approach may help ensure assessment is not limited to frequently encountered topics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.