Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36545165›Full record

ReviewCureus2022

Medical Education 4.0: A Neurology Perspective.

Zaitoon Zafar, Muhammad Umair, Filzah Faheem, Danish Bhatti, Junaid S Kalia

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Observational
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

5 authors.

Zaitoon ZafarNeurology, NeuroCare.AI Neuroscience Academy, Dallas, USA.
Muhammad UmairNeurology, NeuroCare.AI Neuroscience Academy, Dallas, USA.
Filzah FaheemNeurology, NeuroCare.AI Neuroscience Academy, Dallas, USA.
Danish BhattiMovement Disorders, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, Orlando, USA.
Junaid S KaliaNeurology, NeuroCare.Al, Dallas, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medical education faces a difficult challenge today; an exponential increase in knowledge and the rise and rise of disruptive technologies are making traditional education obsolete. As the world nears the era of Industry and Healthcare 4.0, the medical community needs to keep up and prepare physicians for a hyper-connected digital world. Virtual neurological care is poised to be at the forefront of care delivery claims, yet the virtual communication of neurological knowledge is still in its infancy. This increasing digitalization of care and education is both an opportunity and a challenge. With this paper, the authors aim to bridge the gap between technology and neurological education. After a thorough review of recent literature and assessing current trends, the authors propose that contemporary medical education must adhere to the following tenets: Hybrid, Mobile, Mixed-reality, Open Access, Collaborative, Peer-reviewed, Intelligent, Game-based, and Global. We identify and align education objectives with the needs of future digital neurologists. The authors also discuss real-world advances that are aligned to serve the next generation of patients and providers.

Indexed as

medical educationneurologytelemedicineteleneurologyvirtual care

Identifiers

PMID36545165
PMCPMC9762427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.