ArticleGynecologic oncology2024
Surgical training of gynecologic oncology fellows: Long-term trends and implications for future education.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent national trends in pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy in gynecologic oncology fellowship training programs: ACGME data from 2019-2025.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2026Article
- National Trends in Radical Hysterectomy at Gynecologic Oncology Fellowship Training Programs.O&G open · 2026Article
- When it Comes to Complete Gross Resection, it Isn't Complicated: Evaluating Types of Diaphragmatic Surgery in Advanced Ovarian Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Current status and challenges in training the next generation of gynecologic cancer care providers in Asia.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe surgical training of gynecologic oncology (GO) fellows is critical to providing excellent care to women with gynecologic cancers. We sought to evaluate changes in techniques and surgical volumes over an 18-year period among established GO fellowships across the US.
methodsWe emailed surveys to 30 GO programs that had trained fellows for at least 18 years. Surveys requested the number of surgical cases performed by a fellow for seventeen surgical procedures over each of five-time intervals. A One-Way Analysis of Variance was conducted for each procedure, averaged across institutions, to examine whether each procedure significantly changed over the 18-year span.
results14 GO programs responded and were included in the analysis using SPSS. We observed a significant increase in the use of minimally invasive (MIS) procedures (robotic hysterectomy (p < .001), MIS pelvic (p = .001) and MIS paraaortic lymphadenectomy (p = .008). There was a concurrent significant decrease in corresponding "open" procedures. There was a significant decrease in all paraaortic lymphadenectomies. Complex procedures (such as bowel resection) remained stable. However, there was a wide variation in the number of cases reported with extremely small numbers for some critical procedures.
conclusionsThe experience of GO fellows has shifted toward increased use of MIS. While these trends in care are appropriate, they do not diminish the need in many patients for complex open procedures. These findings should help spur the development of innovative training to maintain the ability to provide these core, specialty-defining procedures safely.
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.