ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation of Educational Feedback in Urology Training: A Survey-Based Assessment of Trainees and Program Directors.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Structured Feedback Tools in Surgical Training: Results of the Endo-Workshop of the German Society of Residents in Urology 2024.Urologia internationalis · 2026Article
- Support for the Struggling Learner in Urology.Current urology reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOur objective was to evaluate current satisfaction with the feedback provided during post-graduate urological training, including the quality and frequency of feedback, with participants consisting of both trainees and program directors. Additionally, we aimed to identify areas for future improvement in resident and fellow-level urological training.
methodsGraduating residents, fellows, and program directors from accredited residency/fellowship programs in the United States were surveyed. A total of 575 surveys were sent out. Information on feedback frequency, quality, form, and satisfaction was collected using applicable multiple-choice responses and a five-point Likert scale. An open-ended question gathered suggestions for improving current feedback processes. A chi-square test of independence was used to compare the responses to individual questions.
resultsNinety-two respondents answered our survey: 22 residents, 18 fellows, 25 residency program directors (PDs), and 27 fellowship PDs. The distribution of age, race, and gender categories was not significantly different between PDs and trainees. However, there was a significant difference in their subspecialties and American Urological Association (AUA) sections. The majority of fellowship PDs, residency PDs, fellows, and residents (88 total) reported verbal feedback as the predominant method within their practice. This was followed by written (68 total), electronic (54 total), and app-based feedback (19 total).
conclusionOur study suggests that there may be a need for ongoing improvement or standardization of feedback mechanisms in the field of urological training and highlights the perceived discrepancies between learners and educators.
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.