ArticleBJU international2022
Patients' perceptions of quality of care delivery by urology residents: A nationwide study.
Article in BJU international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient satisfaction and willingness as indicators for patient perspectives toward trainee involvement: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of Assistant Experience on Perioperative Outcomes of Simple and Radical Laparoscopic Nephrectomy: Does It Really Matter?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- The definition of ideal training of a urology resident from two different perspectives: trainees vs professors. Is there agreement in their idea of good training?Central European journal of urology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
34 authors at 20 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo present the results of a nationwide survey among urological patients to evaluate their perception of the quality of care provided by residents.
methodsAn anonymous survey was distributed to patients who were referred to 22 Italian academic institutions. The survey aimed to investigate the professional figure of the urology resident as perceived by the patient.
resultsA total of 2587 patients were enrolled in this study. In all, 51.6% of patients were able to correctly identify a urology resident; however, almost 40% of respondents discriminated residents from fully trained urologists based exclusively on their young age. Overall, 98.2% patients rated the service provided by the resident as at least sufficient. Urology trainees were considered by more than 50% of the patients interviewed to have good communication skills, expertise and willingness. Overall, patients showed an excellent willingness to be managed by urology residents. The percentage of patients not available for this purpose showed an increasing trend that directly correlated with the difficulty of the procedure. Approximately 5-10% of patients were not willing to be managed by residents for simple procedures such as clinical visits, cystoscopy or sonography, and up to a third of patients were not prepared to undergo any surgical procedure performed by residents during steps in major surgery, even if the residents were adequately tutored.
conclusionsOur data showed that patients have a good willingness to be managed by residents during their training, especially for medium- to low-difficulty procedures. Furthermore, the majority of patients interviewed rated the residents' care delivery as sufficient. Urology trainees were considered to have good communication skills, expertise and willingness.
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.