ArticleATS scholar2024
A Nationwide Survey of Critical Care Training in India.
Article in ATS scholar, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The 3-year training in the critical care medicine (CCM) specialty is a relatively new recognized program in India. This program has been run at a few premier institutes across India over the past few years. Objective: The present study aimed to get a critical appraisal of the 3-year training program in CCM from the initial 50 trained Indian intensivists, regarding their research, publications, and self-perceived clinical training adequacy in the various areas of the CCM. Methods: This was a prospective cross-sectional study. The list of participants (initial trainees who completed the course between 2015-2021) was compiled by contacting the respective teachers of the institutes that were permitted and recognized by the competent national authority to run a 3-year training course in CCM in India. A questionnaire was developed with questions related to demographic details; self-reports about clinical training program adequacy measured on the Likert scale; and their research area, publications, and current job profiles. After receipt of institutional ethics committee approval, responses from the participants were collected through Google Forms, which were sent through e-mails. Results: Responses were received from 51 of 62 participants. Among the 51, the majority were male (43; 84%), and their basic training was in anesthesiology (88%). All of them had conducted at least one mandatory research project; three-fourths were prospective observational. The main areas of research projects were cardiovascular (20%), followed by respiratory (18%), sepsis and infection (18%), and renal (14%). Only less than one-third reported being published in any PubMed-indexed journal, with most as a first authorship (93%). One-fourth to one-third of participants reported inadequate training in areas such as extracorporeal therapies and financial and administrative managerial skills in critical care, followed by cardiac and neurocritical care and research methodology. Eight (16%) underwent further training, including 6 from outside India. Conclusion: The present study critically evaluated the 3-year training in the CCM from the perspective of trainees who completed the program in India; highlighting areas of inadequate training such as extracorporeal therapies and financial and administrative managerial skills. Participants reported concern about the training and allocated time for their research and getting it published in an indexed journal.
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.