Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40364937›Full record

ReviewIndian journal of anaesthesia2025

A scoping review of feedback features during clinical education for anaesthesia trainees.

Santosh Patel, Franklin Dexter

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2025. 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

2 authors.

Santosh PatelDepartment of Anaesthesia, Tawam Hospital, Al Ain, UAE.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7753-8544
Franklin DexterDepartment of Anesthesia, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5897-2484

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our scoping review aimed to provide an overview of the evidence on feedback for clinical education in anaesthesia and to identify opportunities for systematic review. The authors searched PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases from 2014 to 2023. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews guideline, we independently screened titles, abstracts and full text for suitability based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Our review encompassed all types of feedback studies specifically involving anaesthesia trainees. We collected data on various feedback contexts, such as task performance, processes, trainees' self-assessment, trainee-faculty relationships and residency programme-related endpoints. The search strategy identified 14 articles from two countries:

Indexed as

Anaesthesiaanaesthesiologyeducationfeedbacklearningpostgraduatetrainees

Identifiers

PMID40364937
PMCPMC12068432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.