Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39205729›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Subspecialty Choices Among Medicine-Pediatrics Graduates: Results From a Four-Year National Program Director Survey.

Anoop Agrawal, Daniel Wells, Michael Kisielewski, Savita Misra, Benjamin Doolittle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

5 authors.

Anoop AgrawalInternal Medicine-Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA.
Daniel WellsInternal Medicine-Pediatrics, University of Tennessee Health Science Center College of Medicine, Memphis, USA.
Michael KisielewskiInternal Medicine, Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine, Alexandria, USA.
Savita MisraInternal Medicine, Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine, Alexandria, USA.
Benjamin DoolittleInternal Medicine-Pediatrics, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objectives Dual-trained medicine-pediatrics physicians (med-peds) play an important role in the healthcare ecosystem. Little is known about the subspecialty choices of med-peds residency graduates. This study aims to characterize the subspecialty choices of med-peds residency graduates. Methods The Medicine-Pediatrics Program Directors Association (MPPDA) administers an annual survey to the program directors of all med-peds residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). This project represents aggregate survey data from 2020-2023. Results The number of program directors responding to the survey ranged from 80.8% (63/78) to 85.7% (66/77; mean response rate: 82.8%). About 465 of 1,245 (37%) graduates over the four years chose fellowship training, across 51 unique subspecialties. The top five selected pathways were: adult pulmonary and critical care 54 (11.6%), allergy and immunology 37 (7.9%), adult infectious diseases 30 (6.5%), adult cardiology 30 (6.5%), and pediatric cardiology 30 (6.5%). Conclusions Med-Peds residents pursue a diversity of subspecialty training and represent an important contribution to the subspecialty workforce. Improving combined subspecialty opportunities may increase participation by med-peds graduates and, in particular, may support the increasing need for pediatric subspecialists.

Indexed as

career choicesmedical resident educationmed-pedsmed-peds graduatesmed-peds residencysubspecialtysubspecialty training

Identifiers

PMID39205729
PMCPMC11353556

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.