ArticlePorto biomedical journal
Undergraduate teaching of urology:
Article in Porto biomedical journal. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Urology underexposure in medical schools: Are we catching up?Porto biomedical journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe undergraduate teaching of urology is not uniform in the various European medical schools and even absent in some of them, despite the widespread adoption of the Bologna process, which advocates a standardization and harmonization of medical education. Our aim was to evaluate the perception of junior doctors about the undergraduate teaching of Urology and the exposure to the specialty of Urology in undergraduate education in Portuguese medical schools.
methodsA questionnaire was emailed to all physicians who first enrolled in the Board of Portuguese Doctors in 2017 and 2018. The questionnaire consisted of several questions about specialty exposure, pathology, and basic urological procedures. A database for statistical analysis was created.
resultsOne hundred and eighty-six answers were considered valid. Although almost all participant physicians attribute considerable importance to Urology specialty, most find their exposure to urological pathology and basic urological procedures to be inappropriate in medical school. Urinary lithiasis and lower urinary tract symptoms are the subjects on which doctors feel most prepared after graduating. Interestingly, 63.4% of doctors consider that the education they had in college was preponderant in choosing their specialty.
conclusionsThe teaching of Urology in Portuguese Medical Schools is considered by junior doctors as inadequate, not reflecting the importance of this specialty in the clinical practice. These results are like those found in other countries. A reflection and consequent change of the teaching paradigm is necessary, namely at the practical teaching level.
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.