Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37179902›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

Radiation Oncology Resident Evaluations: Current Methods and Resident Perceptions.

Greeshma Rajeev-Kumar, Rajashri Manjunath, Yasmin Hasan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology. 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. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Greeshma Rajeev-KumarUniversity of Chicago, Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, Chicago, Illinois.
Rajashri ManjunathAugusta University, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, Georgia.
Yasmin HasanUniversity of Chicago, Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, Chicago, Illinois.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study analyzes assessments within radiation oncology (RO) to determine characteristics of existing assessment methods and then report resident perceptions of these methods. We hypothesize familiarity with evaluation methods is predictive of the perceived utility of evaluations and behavioral changes. Methods and materials: This study was conducted in 2 phases. Phase 1 involved requesting resident evaluation forms from RO residency programs to assess the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education 6 Core Competencies. Analysis of variance was used to determine any significant differences between institutions or categories of questions. In phase 2, RO residents were surveyed about familiarity with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestones and their perceptions about the current methods. Responses to questions were further analyzed using linear regression models. Results: In phase 1, forms were obtained from 13 institutions, and they were based on the 6 Core Competencies with an average of 19 questions (standard deviation, 11; range, 5-47) in total. Analysis of variance did not show significant variation in the number of questions between the categories ( Conclusions: Familiarity with evaluation methods is not correlated with perceptions or behavioral changes necessitating further investigation of alternative predictor variables. Despite the low familiarity with evaluation tools, most residents reported that evaluations were useful and likely to elicit changes in their behaviors and practice, highlighting the value of current evaluation methods.

Identifiers

PMID37179902
PMCPMC10172714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.