ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2024
Global distribution and career outcomes of international fellows trained in Canadian gynecologic oncology programs.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We assessed the global distribution and academic, administrative and research outcomes of international fellows (IFs) trained in Canadian gynecologic oncology (GO) programs. Methods: A web-based survey was sent to IFs who completed GO training in Canada. Using the Web of science database, we identified the publication list, citation record and H-index of IFs and classified them according to their region of practice: high-income countries (HIC), middle income countries (MIC), and low-income countries (LIC). Results: From 1996 to 2020, 81 IFs from 23 countries were trained in English-speaking (62,9%) and French-speaking Canadian universities (37,1%). Most IFs came from HIC (87,6%) and none from LIC. Only 12 IFs (14,8%) are now practicing in Canada. Of the 55 IFs who completed the survey (response rate: 67,9%), the majority (58,2%) reported working in an academic hospital and 29,1% were holding an executive position in a national scholar organization. IFs participated in mentoring residents (96.4 %) and medical students (83,6%) and 36,3% initiated a GO fellowship program in their home country. 67,3% of IFs were involved in international research collaboration and 52,7% participated in international clinical trials. The mean number of publications (22,36 vs 7,75, p = 0.007), citations (369,15 vs 45,12 p = 0.0006) and H-Index (6,88 vs 2,37 p = 0.0001) were significantly higher among IFs working in HIC compared to those in MIC. Most IFs (98,2%) recommended their Canadian GO fellowship program to a colleague from their home country. Conclusion: Most IFs trained in Canadian GO fellowship programs returned to their home countries and achieved important milestones in terms of academic, clinical and research accomplishments.
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.