ReviewJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2023
A new era of assessment for neonatal-perinatal medicine trainees: milestones 2.0.
Review in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2023. 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.
- Bias and Disparities in Neonatal End-of-Life Care.NeoReviews · 2025Article
- Neonatology fellow assessment and evaluation: embracing the word salad of CBME, EPAs, and milestones.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Review
- Critical Care Anesthesiology Milestones 2.0: A Framework for Competency Assessment in Subspecialty Fellowship.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To optimize post-graduate competency-based assessment for medical trainees, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education initiated a sub-specialty-specific revision of the existing Milestones 1.0 assessment framework in 2016. This effort was intended to increase both the effectiveness and accessibility of the assessment tools by incorporating specialty-specific performance expectations for medical knowledge and patient care competencies; decreasing item length and complexity; minimizing inconsistencies across specialties through the development of common "harmonized" milestones; and providing supplemental materials, including examples of expected behaviors at each developmental level, suggested assessment strategies, and relevant resources. This manuscript describes the efforts of the Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Milestones 2.0 Working Group, outlines the overall intent of Milestones 2.0, compares the novel Milestones to the original version, and details the materials contained in the novel supplemental guide. This new tool should enhance NPM fellow assessment and professional development while maintaining consistent performance expectations across specialties.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37095228What 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.