Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30993614›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2019

A National Survey of Undergraduate Clinical Education in Internal Medicine.

Amber T Pincavage, Mark J Fagan, Nora Y Osman, Debra S Leizman, Deborah DeWaay, Camilla Curren, Nadia Ismail, Karen Szauter, Michael Kisielewski, Amy W Shaheen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors.

Amber T PincavageDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, 5841 S Maryland Ave MC 3051, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA. apincava@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu.
Mark J FaganDepartment of Medicine, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Nora Y OsmanDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Debra S LeizmanDepartment of Medicine, University Hospital Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Deborah DeWaayDepartment of Internal Medicine, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Camilla CurrenDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Nadia IsmailDepartment of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Karen SzauterDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.
Michael KisielewskiAlliance for Academic Internal Medicine, Alexandria, VA, USA.
Amy W ShaheenDepartment of Internal Medicine, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the present milieu of rapid innovation in undergraduate medical education at US medical schools, the current structure and composition of clinical education in Internal Medicine (IM) is not clear.

objectiveTo describe the current composition of undergraduate clinical education structure in IM.

designNational annual Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) cross-sectional survey.

participantsOne hundred twenty-nine clerkship directors at all Liaison Committee on Medical Education accredited US medical schools with CDIM membership as of September 1, 2017. MAIN MEASURES: IM core clerkship and post-core clerkship structure descriptions, including duration, educational models, inpatient experiences, ambulatory experiences, and requirements. KEY

resultsThe survey response rate was 83% (107/129). The majority of schools utilized one core IM clerkship model (67%) and continued to use a traditional block model for a majority of their students (84%). Overall 26% employed a Longitudinal Integrated Clerkship model and 14% employed a shared block model for some students. The mean inpatient duration was 7.0 ± 1.7 weeks (range 3-11 weeks) and 94% of clerkships stipulated that students spend some inpatient time on general medicine. IM-specific ambulatory experiences were not required for students in 65% of IM core clerkship models. Overall 75% of schools did not require an advanced IM clinical experience after the core clerkship; however, 66% of schools reported a high percentage of students (> 40%) electing to take an IM sub-internship. About half of schools (48%) did not require overnight call or night float during the clinical IM sub-internship.

conclusionsAlthough there are diverse core IM clerkship models, the majority of IM core clerkships are still traditional block models. The mean inpatient duration is 7 weeks and 65% of IM core clerkship models did not require IM-specific ambulatory education.

Indexed as

CurriculumClinical ClerkshipEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFaculty, MedicalFemaleHumansInternal MedicineMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Statesclerkshipinternal medicine clerkshipundergraduate medical education

Identifiers

PMID30993614
PMCPMC6502925

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.