ReviewClinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases2021
Specialist training in medical microbiology across Europe in 2021-an update on the actual training situation based on a survey.
Review in Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding the path forward: a cross-sectional study of pathology trainee perspectives in the Republic of Ireland.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Bridging continents: postgraduate infectious diseases training programs from central Europe to Southeast Asia.Infection · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe importance of defining and establishing professional standards for Clinical Microbiology (CM) in Europe has long been highlighted, starting with the development of a European curriculum. The first European Curriculum in Medical Microbiology (MM) was adopted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) council in 2017.
objectivesThis paper assesses how training programmes in CM in Europe align with the European curriculum, just under 5 years after its introduction, and reviews what methods of assessment are in use to assess the CM trainees' progress during training programmes. SOURCES: Using an internet-based platform, a questionnaire was circulated to the full, associate and observer members of the UEMS MM section. Information collected related to the structure, content and delivery of CM training in the participating countries, as well as methods of assessment used to evaluate training progress. CONTENT: Twenty-one countries responded, from a total of 30 countries invited to participate. All had a structured CM training programme, with a curriculum, dedicated trainers and a record of training activities. Fifteen countries require trainees to pass an exit examination, and over 60% of countries participate in continuous workplace-based assessment. Of the participating countries, 57% meet the European Training Requirements recommendation that duration of specialist training is 60 months. Regarding core competencies, all trainees gain experience in laboratory skills and infection prevention and control, but the emphasis on clinical management and antimicrobial stewardship is more varied across countries. IMPLICATIONS: The UEMS MM curriculum has been largely adopted by 21 countries within less than 5 years of ratification, which speaks optimistically to a future of standardized quality training across Europe. The introduction of a pilot European Examination in Clinical Microbiology in 2021 is the start of a pan-European assessment of the success of the implementation of this curriculum and the first step in quality assurance for CM training in Europe.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34197933What 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.