ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
Self-Reported Time-at-Bedside and Its Association with In-Training Examination Scores of Residents in Japan.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. 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.
- Time-at-bedside and competency acquisition: a secondary analysis of GM-ITE domain scores in Japanese resident physicians.BMC medical education · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTime-at-bedside plays a central role in clinical medicine. However, the amount of time Japanese clinical residents spend at patients' bedsides remains unexplored.
objectiveTo quantify time-at-bedside and examine its association with in-training examination scores during clinical residency in Japan.
designNationwide multicenter cross-sectional study.
participantsFirst- and second-year postgraduate residents who took the General Medicine In-Training Examination at the end of the 2022 academic year.
interventionsTime-at-bedside was defined as the average time per day the residents spend providing care at patients' bedsides during their residency. Time-at-bedside was classified into six categories: C1 (10-20 min per day), C2 (30-50 min per day), C3 (60-80 min per day), C4 (90-110 min per day), C5 (120-140 min per day), and C6 (150 min or more per day). Data on time-at-bedside were collected through an electronic survey conducted immediately after the General Medicine In-Training Examination. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the General Medicine In-Training Examination score. A multi-level analysis examined the association between self-reported time-at-bedside and the General Medicine In-Training Examination score. KEY
resultsA total of 5344 residents were included in this study. Of these, 2760 were first-year residents, and 2584 were second-year residents. Of the 5334 residents, 66.9% reported spending less than 60 min at a patient's bedside. Compared to the C1, C2 (adjusted score difference [aSD] = 1.1, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.48 to 1.79), C3 (aSD = 1.5, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.20), and C5 (aSD = 2.0, 95 CI 0.62 to 3.38) were positively associated with the General Medicine In-Training Examination score. However, C4 (aSD = 1.1, 95% CI - 0.15 to 2.26) and C6 (aSD = 0, 95% CI - 1.79 to 1.87) were not associated with the General Medicine In-Training Examination score.
conclusionSelf-reported time-at-bedside positively correlates with in-training examination scores among Japanese resident physicians.
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.