ArticleAmerican journal of pharmaceutical education2020
Let External Stakeholders Be Your Guide to Curricular Revision.
Article in American journal of pharmaceutical education, 2020. 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.
- What Does the Pharmaceutical Industry Look for in Pharmacology Graduates? A Thematic Analysis of Semi-Structured Interviews With Pharmaceutical Industry Employees on Their Perceptions of Pharmacology Graduates.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Article
- Podiatrists' Reflections on Content and Delivery of Their Pre-Registration Podiatry Programme at a Regional University in New South Wales, Australia: A Survey of Graduates.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2025Article
- Evaluating a Skills Laboratory Curriculum to Determine the Essential Skills for Pharmacy Students to Learn.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2022Article
- Development of a Vertically Integrated Pharmacy Degree.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
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
Schools and colleges of pharmacy undertake curriculum revisions for a variety of reasons ranging from the reactionary (eg, responding to changes in practice patterns, accreditation standards) to the proactive (eg, striving for innovation and excellence). Continuous quality improvement processes and published curriculum models, both described in this commentary, should be used to guide revision processes. Equally important is engaging the expertise of external stakeholders. While there may be challenges to incorporating external stakeholders in a curriculum revision process, their perspectives and knowledge can contribute to a more robust result, often in unexpectedly positive ways. Logic modeling is one mechanism to structure this approach, maximize the utility of external stakeholders, and strengthen the overall curriculum revision process. Regardless of the size of the revision, a good rule of thumb is to engage external stakeholders at the outset and to let their expertise be your guide.
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.