ArticleJACC. Advances2024
Training Paradigms in Critical Care Cardiology: A Scoping Review of Current Literature.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Future of Cardiovascular Subspecialty Training.JACC. Advances · 2026Review
- Physician Burnout and Work Satisfaction in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit: Sponsored by the Critical Care Cardiology Section of the American College of Cardiology.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Medical Intensive Care Unit Overflow Into the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit: Insights From CCCTN Registry.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- But We Do Not Have a Critical Care Cardiologist?: A Pragmatic Approach to Staffing the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- Future Training Pathways in Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: Interventional Critical Care, Complex Coronary Interventions, and Interventional Heart Failure.JACC. Advances · 2024Review
- Defining Training in Critical Care Cardiology: What Is the "Gold Standard?"JACC. Advances · 2024Article
- Shared Decision-making in Palliative and End-of-life Care in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit.US cardiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Over the past decade there has been increasing interest in critical care medicine (CCM) training for cardiovascular medicine (CV) physicians either in isolation (separate programs in either order [CV/CCM], integrated critical care cardiology [CCC] training) or hybrid training with interventional cardiology (IC)/heart failure/transplant (HF) with targeted CCC training. Objective: To review the contemporary landscape of CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training. Methods: We reviewed the literature from 2000-2022 for publications discussing training in any combination of internal medicine CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training. Information regarding training paradigms, scope of practice and training, duration, sequence, and milestones was collected. Results: Of the 2,236 unique citations, 20 articles were included. A majority were opinion/editorial articles whereas two were surveys. The training pathways were classified into - (i) specialty training in both CV (3 years) and CCM (1-2 years) leading to dual American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) board certification, or (ii) base specialty training in CV with competencies in IC, HF or CCC leading to a non-ABIM certificate. Total fellowship duration varied between 4-7 years after a three-year internal medicine residency. While multiple articles commented on the ability to integrate the fellowship training pathways into a holistic and seamless training curriculum, few have highlighted how this may be achieved to meet competencies and standards. Conclusions: In 20 articles describing CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training, there remains significant heterogeneity on the standardized training paradigms to meet training competencies and board certifications, highlighting an unmet need to define CCC competencies.
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.