ArticlePediatric research2024
National Pediatrician-Scientist Collaborative Workgroup comment on new ACGME requirements' impact on pediatric physician-scientists.
Article in Pediatric research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physician-Scientist Pipeline for Pediatric Rheumatology: The Current Landscape and Future Perspectives.Arthritis care & research · 2026Review
- Success and opportunities of the American Academy of Pediatrics Marshall Klaus research grant program in neonatal-perinatal medicine.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ACGME recently released its recommendation for updates to the program requirements for pediatrics. These updates proposed changes to allocation of resident clinical time and a greater emphasis on individualization. The potential impact of these changes on the training of physician-scientists is discussed.
methodsDiscussion of the proposed changes was held within the members of the National Pediatrician-Scientist Collaborative Workgroup, a group that represents scientists, trainees, program directors, chairs, and physician-scientist educators at nearly 30 residency programs from across the US with a focus on understanding and developing optimal approaches to physician-scientist training. Consideration was given to the both the personal and institutional impact of the proposal for physician-scientist development.
resultsBoth threats and opportunities were identified. Key opportunities include the enhanced individualized training time that could be used to explore research. Threats include re-allocation of clinical training time that may strain institutions financially, expand clinical service requirements for other early career stage individuals, and alter exposure to a broad range of pediatric specialists and sub-specialists that impact career development.
conclusionThe NPSCW encourages consideration of the impact of changing program requirements on physician-scientist development to include ongoing discussion amongst mentors, programs, and trainees to understand and mitigate impact of new program requirements on the development of pediatrician-scientists.
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.