Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38454500›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

Clearing the confusion about post-accreditation monitoring, meta-evaluation and meta-accreditation.

Roghayeh Gandomkar, Azim Mirzazadeh, Tahereh Changiz

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Roghayeh GandomkarDepartment of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. gandomkarr@gmail.com.
Azim MirzazadehDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Tahereh ChangizDepartment of Medical Education, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We have recently published the experience of the accreditation body of undergraduate medical education in Iran on developing and validating standards based on the WFME framework (Gandomkar et al., BMC Med Educ 23:379, 2023). Agabagheri et al. extended our work and proposed a blueprint for post-accreditation monitoring based on their experience in developing an official guide in their Matters Arising (Aghabagheri et al., BMC Med Educ). The authors have used post-accreditation monitoring as a process of monitoring and controlling accreditation activities, procedures often referred to as meta-evaluation or meta-accreditation (depending on the objectives of evaluation) in the literature. On the contrary, post-accreditation monitoring alludes to the process of continuous quality improvement of educational programs after accreditation. We would like to make clarifications between post-accreditation monitoring, meta-evaluation and meta-accreditation which have been used interchangeably in their paper. Considering the emerging interests in scholarship and non-scholarship activities and reports in undergraduate medical education accreditation, this clarification provides a better understanding of the roles of these crucial concepts in the accreditation process.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalEducation, Medical, UndergraduateAccreditationCurriculumHumansSchools, MedicalMeta-accreditationMeta-evaluationPost-accreditation monitoring

Identifiers

PMID38454500
PMCPMC10921662

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.