ReviewFrontiers in medicine2023
Professional medical education approaches: mobilizing evidence for clinicians.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Building capacity for genomics in primary care: a scoping review of practitioner attitudes, education needs, and enablers.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Knowledge and attitudes toward organ donation and transplantation among medical students in Greece: A cross-sectional survey.World journal of transplantation · 2026Article
- Continuing education for the chiropractic profession: a cross-sectional study analyzing potential barriers to future chiropractic academic and research development.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2025Article
- Innovative Mobile App (CPD By the Minute) for Continuing Professional Development in Medicine: Multimethods Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Integration and innovation: medical and health consortia improving continuing medical education in China.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Approaches to Reach Trustworthy Patient Education: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Developing the Society of Obstetric Medicine Australia and New Zealand (SOMANZ) Hypertension in Pregnancy Guideline 2023: Guideline development approaches, challenges and contextual considerations.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2024Article
- Headache education in Africa: a narrative review of educational programs, clinical practice implications, and policy opportunities.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapidly proliferating high-quality evidence supports daily decision-making in clinical practice. Continuing professional medical education links this evidence to practicing clinicians who are strongly motivated to improve the quality of their care by using the latest information. Approaches to professional education vary, and their effects depend on specific scenarios. This narrative review summarizes the main approaches for professional medical education that facilitate the mobilization of evidence for clinicians. It includes traditional learning (passive and active dissemination of educational materials, lectures, and mass media dissemination), constructivist learning (engaging in local consensus processes and education outreach visits, interfacing with local opinion leaders, conducting patient-mediated interventions, employing audit and feedback processes, and utilizing clinical decision-supporting systems), and blended learning approaches (the integration of in-person or online passive learning with active and creative learning by the learners). An optimized selection from these approaches is challenging but critical to clinicians and healthcare systems.
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.