ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
The UEMS experience in continuous medical education accreditation process: a 'quo vadis' analysis of our global database.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 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.
- Global Learner Feedback on Continuing Medical Education-Accredited e-Learning Modules in Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Rethinking the Impact of Single Continuing Educational Activities: Navigating Complexity Through Insights from Real-World Evaluation and Contemporary Literature.Journal of CME · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The authors systematically appraise a large database of continuous professional development (CPD) and continuous medical education (CME) events against the European Accreditation Council for Continuous Medical Education (EACCME) framework. Methods: The authors performed a retrospective observational study of all CPD or CME events within the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) database between 2017 and 2019, including 91 countries and 6034 events. Assessment of event design, quality and outcomes was evaluated against a validated, expert-derived accreditation framework, using thematic analysis to extract distinct themes, and subsequent quantitative analysis. Results: The authors included 5649 live educational events (LEEs) and 385 e-learning materials (ELMs). Three thousand seven hundred sixty-two [3762 (62.3%)] of the events did not report clear justification in their needs assessment process. Most accreditation applications claimed covering a single educational need [1603/2277 (70.3%)]. Needs assessments were reported to be similar across conferences, courses and other types of events ( Conclusions: Despite EACCME providing a robust framework for the CPD/CME accreditation process, reporting quality can still be improved, as more than 1 in 2 events fail to provide a clear description of their needs assessment. To the authors' knowledge, this is the largest educational LEE/ELM database, which can be a starting to revisit the CME/CPD accreditation process.
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.