Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36532399›Full record

ArticleMedical science educator2022

Physician-Scientists: Fixing the Leaking Pipeline - A Scoping Review.

Rajiv C Yeravdekar, Ankit Singh

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science educator, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rajiv C YeravdekarFaculty of Health Sciences (FoHS), Symbiosis International University, Mulshi Road, Lavale, Pune, Maharasthra 412 115 India.
Ankit SinghSymbiosis Institute of Health Sciences, Symbiosis International University, Mulshi Road, Lavale, 412 115 Pune, India.ORCID 0000-0001-6702-7791

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This scoping review was undertaken to assess the current status of physician-scientists, including the challenges associated with their enrollment and retention, measures of success, and determinants of their satisfaction, all of which contribute to the dwindling numbers of physician-scientists aptly referred to as a "leaking pipeline" of physician-scientists. Methods: A total of 2555 research documents from three databases, viz. Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, were selected. A total of 40 documents were considered for final analysis following the 5-stage framework of Arksey and O'Malle. Results: Medical institutions should promote and sustain enrollments by addressing various perceived parameters of success and satisfaction. The challenge of attrition due to individual, regulatory, and sociocultural considerations also needs to be addressed. Conclusions: Medical institutions should focus on establishing well-documented career tracks with provisions for career advancement, promotion of team science, raising mentors, giving preference to students with peer-reviewed publications for post graduate (PG) admissions, and establishing a separate office for career development and guidance for physician-scientist. It is equally important to address the factors which promote retention and prevent attrition, viz. measures of success and determinants of satisfaction. Additional measures include creating a cadre of physician-scientists in government organizations, fostering collaboration of physician-scientists with incubation centers and startups, and adding additional mandatory curriculum components focused on project-based training.

Indexed as

Bench to bedsideMD-Ph.D.Mind mapPhysician-scientistProtected research time

Identifiers

PMID36532399
PMCPMC9755418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.