ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
SAGES Advanced GI/MIS fellowship redesign: pilot results and adoption of new standards.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between cumulative surgeon experience and long-term outcomes in complex abdominal wall reconstruction.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Review
- Imaging Informatics Fellowship Curriculum: Building Consensus on the Most Critical Topics and the Future of the Informatics Fellowship.Journal of digital imaging · 2023Article
- Thriving or surviving? A critical examination of funding models for fellowship council fellowships.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Ten Year Trends in Minimally Invasive Surgery Fellowship.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSAGES is responsible for defining educational content for Advanced GI/MIS fellowships administered through the fellowship council (FC). In Fall 2016, to better define core content contained in these fellowships, SAGES proposed new case log criteria including minimum volumes within six defined categories. To test feasibility of these criteria, SAGES conducted a pilot study during the 2017-2018 academic year.
methodsAdvanced GI/MIS fellowship programs directors (PD's) who also held leadership roles in SAGES were invited to participate in the pilot. Fourteen programs including 17 fellows volunteered. To assess generalizability, 2016-2017 case log data for the volunteered pilot programs were compared to all other advanced GI/MIS programs (n = 92). To assess feasibility of the new criteria, pilot programs' 2017-2018 case logs were compared to 3 years of historical fellows' case logs (n = 326). Fisher's exact test was used for comparisons with p < 0.05 considered significant.
resultsComplete data were available for 16 pilot fellows (median 251.5 advanced MIS cases and 62.5 endoscopies per fellow). According to 2016-2017 data, pilot programs were not statistically different from non-pilot programs regarding achievement of any defined category minimum. Compared to historical controls, the 2017-2018 pilot fellows were significantly more likely to meet the defined category minimum for foregut cases and demonstrated a non-significant trend toward higher achievement of minimums for bariatrics, inguinal hernia, ventral hernia, and endoscopy. Pilot fellows were significantly less likely to meet the minimum for HPB/solid organ/colorectal/thoracic cases. Based on these data, SAGES eliminated the HPB/solid organ/colon/thoracic category and, in partnership with the FC, approved staged implementation of the remaining criteria over 3 years.
conclusionsThe pilot study provided feasibility and generalizability evidence that allowed inclusion of appropriate defined categories for establishment of the new Advance GI/MIS fellowship criteria. We anticipate that the revised criteria will enhance the educational benefit of these fellowships.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31190226What 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.